# Shaw and Anr v. Farida Khatoon and

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1171
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-09-12
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30085 of 2006
- **Bench:** Sibghat Ullah Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shaw-and-anr-v-farida-khatoon-and-42364
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Railways Act 1989-Section 20 A (1) (as
amended by Act 2008)-Land Acquisition
for Railway by notification under Section
20 A (1) on dated 10.02.2009-substance
published on 06.03.2009-Deceleration
under Section 20 E (1) dated 15.02.2010
published on 18.02.2010-well within one
week-held-acquisition proceeding legalpetition to quash acquisition proceedingdimissed.

Held: Para 26

In view of foregoing discussions. we are
of the view that declaration issued under
Section 20E(1) of the Railways Act,
dated 15th February, 2010 published in
the gazette on 18th February, 2010 was
well within one year from the date of
publication of substance of notification
i.e. 6th March, 2009. Thus the prayer of
the petitioner for quashing the entire
acquisition proceeding on the aforesaid
ground cannot be accepted.
Case Law discussed:
2011 (3) AWC 3112=2011 (11) SCC 100;
(1995) 1 SCC 133; (1995) 2 SCC 497; (1997) 8
SCC 47; Special Civil Application No.6097 of
2010 (Raghjibhai Kanjibhai Kharsan vs. Union
of India) decided on 17th January, 2011; S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.9839 of 2011 (Pushpa
Devi Maloo vs. Land Acquisition Officer and
others) decided on 2nd April, 2012

## Text

3 All] Kishan Lal V. State of U.P. and another
1171
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30085 of 2006

Kishan Lal

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pradeep Chandra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Code of Civil Procedure-Order1 Rule 10impleadment application-suit for specific
performance-during pendnecy of suit
petitioner
purchased
the
disputed
property-held-Transferee
is
necessary
and proper property.

Held: Para 3

If Ganga Ram had transferred the
property to the petitioner before filing of
the suit then it would have been
necessary for the plaintiffs to implead
the petitioner as subsequent purchaser.
Accordingly, if petitioner purchased the
property during pendency of the suit he
could
very
well
apply
for
his
impleadment as subsequent purchaser.
The lower revisional court has wrongly
distinguished
the
authority
of
the
Supreme Court reported in Amit Kumar
Shaw and Anr. Vs. Farida Khatoon and
Anr. AIR 2005 SC 2209 : (2005) 11 SCC
403 : 2005 (2) ARC 174. It has been held
in the said authority that if during
pendency
of
the
suit
interest
is
transferred
then
transferee
is
a
necessary or at least proper party as it is
a case of assignment.
Case law Discussed:
AIR 2005 SC 2209: (2005) 11 SCC 403: 2005
(2) ARC 174.
(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.)

1. List revised. No one appears for the
respondents. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner.

2. Respondents No.2 & 3 and one
Keshav since deceased and survived by
respondents No.4 to 7 have filed a suit for
specific performance against respondent
No.8, Ganga Ram in the form of O.S.
No.437 of 1997 for specific performance of
a registered agreement for sale alleged to
have been executed by Ganga Ram
defendant in favour of the plaintiffs on
31.10.1991. During pendency of the suit,
petitioner filed an impleadment application
stating therein that through registered sale
deed dated 23.08.1999 (during pendency of
suit) he had purchased the property in
dispute from Ganga Ram. The impleadment
application was opposed by the plaintiffs.
Trial Court/ Civil Judge, Junior Divison,
Jhansi rejected the impleadment application
on 18.08.2004. Against the said order
petitioner filed Civil Revision No.153 of
2004, which was dismissed by A.D.J./
Special
Judge,
(DAA),
Jhansi
on
22.04.2006, hence this writ petition.

3. The courts below rejected the
application placing reliance upon certain
authorities according to which a rival
claimant to the ownership is not a necessary
or proper party in a suit for specific
performance. However, in the present case,
the situation is different. Petitioner did not
claim that at the time of execution of the
agreement he was the owner and Ganga
Ram was not the owner. Petitioner's case is
that during pendency of the suit Ganga
Ram, the defendant had transferred the
property to him. If Ganga Ram had
transferred the property to the petitioner
before filing of the suit then it would have
1172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
been necessary for the plaintiffs to implead
the petitioner as subsequent purchaser.
Accordingly, if petitioner purchased the
property during pendency of the suit he
could very well apply for his impleadment
as
subsequent
purchaser.
The
lower
revisional court has wrongly distinguished
the authority of the Supreme Court reported
in Amit Kumar Shaw and Anr. Vs.
Farida Khatoon and Anr. AIR 2005 SC
2209 : (2005) 11 SCC 403 : 2005 (2) ARC
174. It has been held in the said authority
that if during pendency of the suit interest is
transferred then transferee is a necessary or
at least proper party as it is a case of
assignment.

4. Accordingly, writ petition is
allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. It is
directed that petitioner shall be impleaded in
the suit as defendant No.2. However it is
clarified that petitioner will not be entitled
to take any plea which can not be taken by
the defendant No.1.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ABHINAVA UPADHYA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32317 OF 2012

Hare Krishna Public School ...Petitioner
Versus
Project
Manager
Dedicated,
Freight
Corridore Corp. & Others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashish Agrawal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri Govind Saran
Railways Act 1989-Section 20 A (1) (as
amended by Act 2008)-Land Acquisition
for Railway by notification under Section
20 A (1) on dated 10.02.2009-substance
published on 06.03.2009-Deceleration
under Section 20 E (1) dated 15.02.2010
published on 18.02.2010-well within one
week-held-acquisition proceeding legalpetition to quash acquisition proceedingdimissed.

Held: Para 26

In view of foregoing discussions. we are
of the view that declaration issued under
Section 20E(1) of the Railways Act,
dated 15th February, 2010 published in
the gazette on 18th February, 2010 was
well within one year from the date of
publication of substance of notification
i.e. 6th March, 2009. Thus the prayer of
the petitioner for quashing the entire
acquisition proceeding on the aforesaid
ground cannot be accepted.
Case Law discussed:
2011 (3) AWC 3112=2011 (11) SCC 100;
(1995) 1 SCC 133; (1995) 2 SCC 497; (1997) 8
SCC 47; Special Civil Application No.6097 of
2010 (Raghjibhai Kanjibhai Kharsan vs. Union
of India) decided on 17th January, 2011; S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.9839 of 2011 (Pushpa
Devi Maloo vs. Land Acquisition Officer and
others) decided on 2nd April, 2012

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

1. The petitioner by this writ
petition, has prayed for quashing the
entire proceedings for acquisition of land
initiated by notification dated 10th
February, 2009 published in the Gazette
of India in exercise of power under
Section 20A(1) of the Railways Act,
1989 (hereinafter referred to as the
Railways Act).

2. We have heard Sri Ashish
Agrawal,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner,
Sri
S.P.
Gupta, learned