Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SITARAM SHIVHANDRAI GARODIA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/11/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, dated
August 11, 1994 made in W.P.No. 2705 of 1986.
It is not necessary to dilate upon all the facts
concerning the case. Suffice it to state that the
respondents have challenged the acquisition of part of the
land in Survey No. 249 admeasuring 130 acres 19 Guntas which
the respondent claims to have purchased. It would appear
that in the affidavit filed by the Railway, they have given
up the proposal for the acquisition of the land for Railway
purpose. Under those circumstances, there is no necessity to
proceed further with the acquisition. It is then contended
by Shri F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for
the respondents, that in W.P.No. 1003 of 1982 titled Sitaram
Shivchand Garodia & Anr. vs. S.V.Gokhale, the Assistant Salt
Commissioner & Ors., the Division Bench of the High Court by
order dated April 28, 1983 had allowed the writ petition
setting aside the proceedings for summary eviction of them
from the land in their occupation with liberty for the Union
of India to file a suit to establish their title to the
land. When S.L.P.(C) Nos. 8706 of 1984 & 11507-08 of 1983,
against 1987, this Court refused to grant leave. The
appellant‘s attempt to have respondent evicted from the
lands stands concluded subject to the division in the suit.
We are informed that though the appellants have filed Suit
No. 670/87 on the original side of the High Court, it is
contended that as per the cause title, it would appear that
the respondents have not been impleaded as party-defendants.
We need not go into the correctness thereof , since the
respondents though ex-facie are shown to be not parties to
the suit; even then, it would be open to the Government to
take steps as may be available under law for impleading them
as defendants, if not already impleaded, and in
sucheventuality it would be open to the respondents, to take
such defence as is available.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2