1 2025:CGHC:17815 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 348 of 2025 1 - Santosh Kumar Wadhwani S/o Late Nandlal Wadhwani Aged About 54 Years R/o Main Road Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba ( C.G. ) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Sub - Divisional Officer, Water Management, Sub- Division- Hasdeo Barrage, Darri District- Korba ( C.G. ). 2 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department ( Building And Road ), Rampur Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub- Divisional Officer ( Revenue ), Korba/ Land Acquisition Officer, Korba, Office Of Sub- Divisional Officer ( Revenue ), Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, Korba, Officer Of District- Collector, Korba ( C.G. ). 5 - Sub-Divisional Officer Public Works Department (Bridge Construction), Rampur, Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba ( C.G. ). ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 21.04.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.3.2025 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Korba in Civil Suit No.11A of 2024, whereby an application moved by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC was rejected. 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondent authorities, inter alia, on the ground that he is the owner and possession holder of the land bearing Survey No.558/7 admeasuring 0.05 acres, situated at Korba, P.H. No.16, RNM Korba, Tehsil & District Korba. It is also pleaded that a house and 6 shops were constructed on the suit property. The petitioner further pleaded that the suit property was purchased through a registered sale-deed and due permission was granted by the Collector, Korba vide orders dated 9.7.2008 and 27.9.2008. The sale-deed was executed on 12.11.2008 in consideration of Rs.3,25,000/-. The petitioner also pleaded that after obtaining permission from various departments, the petitioner constructed a residential house and 6 shops. A notice was sent by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Water Management on 5.6.2024 to the petitioner to remove illegal encroachment/illegal construction. In response, a legal notice was served on the respondents and thereafter, the petitioner filed a civil suit. 3 3. It is also pleaded that for the construction of the Railway Under Bridge (RUB) near Sonaliya Jewellers at the level crossing, C.G.- 28 of the Korba-Champa Railway line, the demarcation was conducted and the land of the petitioner was also affected. The petitioner was assured that he would be paid adequate compensation. The compensation was assessed by respondent No.2, and the petitioner was informed regarding the disbursement of compensation on 25.10.2024. The valuation of compensation was Rs.79,39,181/-. The petitioner filed an objection on 4.11.2024 to the effect that the subject property is a diverted land. Despite the objection, the decision to remove the construction was taken by the respondent authorities without deciding the objection. In the pending civil suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC to implead the original co-owner of the subject property. The petitioner pleaded that the subject property was purchased by him from one Kulwant Singh S/o Shri Darbara Singh on 25.11.2008. It was also stated that the impleadment of Kulwant Singh would not change the nature of the suit. The respondents filed their reply. The learned trial Court rejected the application vide order dated 20.3.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject land has already been acquired by the Indian Railways and an award has been passed. He would further submit that in the -4- acquisition proceedings, the subject land has not been transferred in the name of the petitioner, and mutation proceedings are pending before the competent authority. Therefore, it is contended that the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 6. Heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 7. The issue involved in the present case is as to whether Kulwant Singh is a necessary party in the suit or not. The issue with regard to a necessary party has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Baluram vs. P. Chellathangam, AIR 2015 SC 1264. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a "necessary party" is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a "necessary party" is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed whereas, a "proper party" is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit. The relevant para 15 is reproduced herein below:- “15. A "necessary party" is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a 5 "necessary party" is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A "proper party" is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance.” 8. In the present case, the petitioner purchased the property through a registered sale-deed from Kulwant Singh on 25.11.2008. The petitioner has already constructed a building on the said property. However, the name of the petitioner has not been mutated in the land acquisition record and proceedings in this regard are pending before the learned Tehsildar. In the entire plaint, the petitioner has not pleaded these facts. The petitioner has not pleaded the facts in the plaint, which have been pleaded in the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC. The petitioner has filed a civil suit against the State authorities seeking a declaration of title, payment of compensation by treating the subject land as diverted land and a decree of permanent injunction. The petitioner has not sought any relief against Kulwant Singh. 9. It is also not in dispute that an effective decree can be passed by the learned trial Court in the absence of Kulwant Singh. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has -6- rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner. 10. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi