901-wp-2536-2019 (c).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2536 OF 2019 Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh ...Petitioner VERSUS Punit Avinash Sonawane And Ors. ...Respondents ….. Adv. Dilip Bodake a/w Adv. Viraj P. Dhumal, Amar P. Dhumal and Adv. Sujata B. Lohar, for Petitioner. Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4- State. Adv. Pradeep Salgar a/w Adv. Vaishnavi Shelar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. ….. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2026. P.C. : Heard both sides. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 04.02.2017 passed below Exhibit-21, rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking impleadment in RCS No.798 of 2016. 3. The respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff, who has preferred RCS No.798 of 2016 for injunction simpliciter. The cause of action stated to be the notice dated 24.08.2016 issued by respondent No.4- Deputy Collector in respect of the resumption of the land. The suit land, ZIP 1 of 5 901-wp-2536-2019 (c).doc which is part and parcel of Gut No.392, originally belonged to the present petitioner/third party. It was acquired by the competent authority. It was allotted to respondent Nos.5 and 6 on 06.11.2006 on certain conditions. Thereafter, it was sold by them to the respondent No.1/plaintiff on 20.01.2014. 4. The petitioner submitted the application Exhibit-21 on the premise that respondent Nos.5 and 6 fraudulently received the land of the petitioner though they were given alternate land. The fraud was disclosed in enquiry conducted by the competent authority. A letter dated 06.06.2018 issued by the Additional Collector would indicate the mischief. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 were not seriously contesting the suit. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is necessary and a proper party. The fraud played by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 needs to be disclosed to the Court. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not seriously contesting the matter and they were proceeded ex parte. An order of status quo was also passed by the Trial Court. It is submitted that being original owner, the petitioner is entitled to get back the land acquired by the authority. In the alternative, it is also tried to be submitted that the petitioner is appropriate party whose presence is required for the objective scrutiny of the matter. ZIP 2 of 5 901-wp-2536-2019 (c).doc 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner was paid compensation when his land was acquired and possession receipt was also executed. His earlier suit was dismissed. He has no interest in the suit land. No relief is claimed against him. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 are contesting the suit for filing written statement. Respondent No.1 purchased the suit land after following the due procedure of law. 7. The learned AGP supports the impugned order. It is submitted that the State authorities are contesting the suit and they have preferred written statement also. 8. Impugned order shows that the RCS No.590 of 2007 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed, which would indicate that he is not in possession of the suit land. It was acquired by due procedure of law and he was paid compensation. Thereafter, it was allotted to respondent Nos.5 and 6. There are pleadings on record to show that after relaxing the condition and extending the permission, it was sold by respondent Nos.5 to 6 to the respondent No.1 on 20.01.2014. The petitioner can have no vested interest in the suit land after its acquisition and payment of compensation to him. 9. The relief sought is an injunction simpliciter in the wake of the action being taken by the respondent authorities for resumption of the land. Trial Court is justified in holding that the petitioner is not a ZIP 3 of 5 901-wp-2536-2019 (c).doc necessary party. It is disclosed that initially the suit was to proceed ex parte against Respondent Nos.2 to 4, but appropriate steps were taken by them. They have also filed a written statement contesting the suit. There is no reason to apprehend that the suit would go uncontested or would proceed in collusion with the authorities. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that, at least, the petitioner can be said to be a proper party. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr. Versus Farida Khatoon & Another1. The facts of the judgment are distinguishable. Those would not enure to his benefit. It is clearly observed by Apex Court in paragraph No.10 that the impleadment of a party depends on its interest in the suit property. There has to be an enforceable legal right for the persons seeking impleadment. Both things are absent in the present case. 11. The order of the Division Bench in the case of Shivpratap Krishnarao Patankar Versus Yogesh Mhase & Ors. is not in respect of order I Rule 10 of CPC. It is an interlocutory order and would not enure the to the benefit of the petitioner. 12. Merely because some inquiries were initiated at the instance of the petitioner and a report was prepared would not confer any right to the petitioner to claim impleadment in the suit. The letter dated 06.06.2018 issued by the Additional Collector would not culminate the 1 (2005) 11 SCC 403. ZIP 4 of 5 901-wp-2536-2019 (c).doc petitioner into necessary or a proper party. The petitioner has an independent remedy against the authorities and the same cannot be ventilated in the present suit. The State authorities are contesting the suit. Hence, the apprehension of the petitioner is baseless. 13. I find no illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. The Trial Court shall expeditiously conclude the proceedings. 14. Needless to state that observations recorded in this order are prima facie in nature. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME] ZIP 5 of 5