Ram Pyare Singh Vs. Ram Govind and ors.

Ram Pyare Singh vs Ram Govind and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Feb 14, 2006

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/490639

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/490639
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Anjani Kumar, J.
Decided On: Feb 14, 2006
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 8600 of 2006
Subject: Tenancy
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Transfer of Property Act - Sections 106 - Order 1, Rule 10; Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Pyare Singh

Advocate Manish Dev Singh, Adv.

Respondent

Ram Govind and ors.

Advocate None

Legal References

Acts: Transfer of Property Act - Sections 106 - Order 1, Rule 10; Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In: 2006(3)AWC2538

Excerpt

.....the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. .....affirmed by the revisional court whereby the revisional court has allowed an application filed by respondents 2 and 3 for impleadment, approached this court by means of this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india.3. the brief facts are that during the pendency of a suit for arrears of rent and eviction it appears that respondents 2 and 3 have purchased 2/3 share of the property in dispute by registered sale deed which is not disputed. an application for impleadment has been filed on behalf of these two persons which has been rejected by the trial court. aggrieved thereby a revision was filed before the revisional court which is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the trial court to decide afresh in case a fresh application is filed under order i, rule 10. secondly, an application was filed by respondents 2 and 3 for impleadment on the ground that they have purchased 2/3 share of the property in dispute by registered sale deed and after they purchased they came to know that a suit with regard to recovery of rent is pending, they prayed for their impleadment as respondent. 2 and 3 are necessary parties. this application was allowed by the trial court by order dated 29th september 2005. aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred a revision before the revisional court which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 10th november, 2005. learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even assuming that respondents 2 and 3 are bona fide purchaser of the property in dispute, for filing a suit they ought to have served a notice on the petitioner under section 106 of transfer of property act and by their impleadment at this stage the position in law would be as if notice under section 106 of transfer of property act stood waived and it is settled law that without serving a notice under section 106 of transfer of property act no suit for eviction can be filed. learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the view taken by the trial.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Anjani Kumar, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner-tenant aggrieved by an order passed by the trial court and affirmed by the revisional court whereby the revisional court has allowed an application filed by respondents 2 and 3 for impleadment, approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The brief facts are that during the pendency of a suit for arrears of rent and eviction it appears that respondents 2 and 3 have purchased 2/3 share of the property in dispute by registered sale deed which is not disputed. An application for impleadment has been filed on behalf of these two persons which has been rejected by the trial court. Aggrieved thereby a revision was filed before the revisional court which is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the trial court to decide afresh in case a fresh application is filed under Order I, Rule 10. Secondly, an application was filed by respondents 2 and 3 for impleadment on the ground that they have purchased 2/3 share of the property in dispute by registered sale deed and after they purchased they came to know that a suit with regard to recovery of rent is pending, they prayed for their impleadment as respondent. 2 and 3 are necessary parties. This application was allowed by the trial court by order dated 29th September 2005. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred a revision before the revisional court which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 10th November, 2005. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even assuming that respondents 2 and 3 are bona fide purchaser of the property in dispute, for filing a suit they ought to have served a notice on the petitioner under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and by their impleadment at this stage the position in law would be as if notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act stood waived and it is settled law that without serving a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act no suit for eviction can be filed. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the view taken by the trial court and affirmed by the revisional court, therefore, suffers from manifest error.

4. I have given my considered thought to the aforesaid argument but I do not find any force. By mere impleadment of respondents 2 and 3 it cannot be said that the defence which were available are waived. Petitioner's defence including that of notice are still open. Reading the application filed by respondents 2 and 3 and the order it appears that respondents 2 and 3 have sought impleadment on the ground that the suit for recovery of rent is pending. In this view of the matter I do not find any error in the orders passed by the trial court and affirmed by the revisional court whereby the Courts have allowed the application for impleadment of the respondents.

5. In view of what has been stated above the writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2006 Same Parties Ram Pyare Singh vs Ram Govind and ors. Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge Anjani Kumar, J. Acts & Sections Transfer of Property Act - Sections 106 - Order 1, Rule 10; C...

Tenancy