Union of India & Ors Vs. Sitaram Shivhandrai
Garodia & Anr [1996] INSC 1386 (4 November 1996)
K. Ramaswamy,
G.B. Pattanaik
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Leave
granted.
We
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This
appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the
High Court of Bombay, dated August 11, 1994
made in W.P.No. 2705 of 1986.
It is
not necessary to dilate upon all the facts concerning the case. Suffice it to
state that the respondents have challenged the acquisition of part of the land
in Survey No. 249 admeasuring 130 acres 19 Guntas which the respondent claims
to have purchased. It would appear that in the affidavit filed by the Railway,
they have given up the proposal for the acquisition of the land for Railway
purpose. Under those circumstances, there is no necessity to proceed further
with the acquisition. It is then contended by Shri F.S. Nariman, learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondents, that in W.P.No. 1003 of 1982 titled Sitaram
Shivchand Garodia & Anr. vs. S.V.Gokhale, the Assistant Salt Commissioner
& Ors., the Division Bench of the High Court by order dated April 28, 1983 had allowed the writ petition
setting aside the proceedings for summary eviction of them from the land in
their occupation with liberty for the Union of India to file a suit to
establish their title to the land. When S.L.P.(C) Nos. 8706 of 1984 &
11507-08 of 1983, against 1987, this Court refused to grant leave. The appellant`s
attempt to have respondent evicted from the lands stands concluded subject to
the division in the suit.
We are
informed that though the appellants have filed Suit No. 670/87 on the original
side of the High Court, it is contended that as per the cause title, it would
appear that the respondents have not been impleaded as party-defendants.
We
need not go into the correctness thereof , since the respondents though
ex-facie are shown to be not parties to the suit; even then, it would be open
to the Government to take steps as may be available under law for impleading
them as defendants, if not already impleaded, and in sucheventuality it would
be open to the respondents, to take such defence as is available.
The
appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
