1 2025:CGHC:13605 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 658 of 2022 1 - Smt. Saraswati Gourha W/o Late Lakhanlal Gourha Aged About 72 Years R/o Shyamprabha Niwas, Near Central Gurudwara, Godpara Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Mo. No. 9879760866 2 - Smt. Monika Sharma W/o Vikas Sharma Aged About 33 Years R/o Shyamprabha Niwas, Near Central Gurudwara, Godpara Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Mo. No. 9879760866. ... Petitioners versus 1 - Nishikant Shukla S/o Late Ramadhar Shukla Aged About 50 Years R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Vidya Up-Nagar Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Shivkumar Shukla S/o Late Vyasnarayan Shukla Aged About 76 Years R/o Near Glamour Beauty Parlor, Main Road, Shiv Mandir, Seepat Road, Nutan Chowk Sarkanda Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Arvind Kumar Shukla S/o Vyasnarayan Shukla Aged About 59 Years R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Behind Of I D B T Bank Gali, Seepat Road, Nutan Chowk Sarkanda Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Manharan Lal Gourha S/o Late Bholanath Gourha Aged About 75 Years R/o Brahmanpara Meu, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector, Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioners : Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Shri Vikrant Pillay, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Vedant Shadangi, P.L. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.03.2025 1. In the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 17.10.2022 passed in Civil Suit No.22-A of 2022, whereby the application moved by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration of title, partition, possession and injunction over Survey Nos. 217/1 & 301/1 admeasuring 14.169 hectares, situated at Village Kutrabod on the ground that the property is their ancestral property and the defendants are interfering with the peaceful possession. He would further submit that the part of the suit property was acquired by the State for the construction of a road. He would also submit that since there is a dispute between the parties with regard to title and possession over the suit property, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC was moved, seeking a direction to the Land 3 Acquisition Officer not to disburse the amount of compensation to the defendants. An application was also moved by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Pamgarh as a party respondent. However, the learned trial Court rejected the applications. He would contend that an award has already been passed and the amount of compensation has been deposited with the Land Acquisition Officer. Since no effective order or decree can be passed against the Sub-Divisional Officer with regard to the disbursement of compensation without making him a party, the application was moved. He would pray that the order passed by the learned trial Court may be set aside and the petition may be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He would submit that according to the provisions of Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act, 2013’), a civil suit does not lie against any proceedings of Land Acquisition. He would further submit that the petitioners may approach the Land Acquisition Officer for redressal of their grievances. He would contend that the learned trial Court, after considering the submissions made by the respective counsels, -4- rightly rejected the application. He would also submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that there is a dispute between the petitioners and respondents No.1 to 4. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 6. It is a well settled principle of law that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and no person can be added as a plaintiff or defendant against his wishes. 7. Admittedly, the part of suit land has already been used by the State Government for the construction of an approach road. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of title, partition, possession and injunction. An award has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, and the amount of compensation is lying with said authority. The apprehension of the petitioners appears reasonable and if the amount of compensation is disbursed, it would be difficult for the plaintiffs to recover it from defendants No.1 to 4. It is also well-settled that a decree passed in a civil suit would be binding on the parties. 8. In the present case, the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer is not a defendant, therefore, the plaintiffs 5 moved an application before the learned trial Court to implead it as a defendant. The learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that no relief has been sought against the said authority. If the authority is not arrayed as a defendant, no direction/order or decree can be passed against it. The plaintiffs had moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC seeking a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer not to disburse the amount of compensation till the disposal of the civil suit, but such a direction would not bind the said authority unless it is made a party. 9. The contention made by counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 regarding the bar under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 appears to be misconceived as the petitioners have not challenged the Land Acquisition proceedings, therefore, the bar contained under Section 64 of the Act, 2012 would not apply. 10. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court committed an error of law in rejecting the application moved by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. Consequently, the order dated 17.10.2022 is hereby set aside, and the application moved under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is hereby allowed. The petitioners would -6- be at liberty to array the Land Acquisition Officer, Pamgarh as a party defendant in the pending civil suit. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi