RAJKUMAR AGRAWAL vs KAILASH NATH TIWARI

1

CGHC010406552026
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed
by INDRAJEET
SAHU
Date: 2026.10.16
16:06:11 +0530
INDRAJEET
SAHU
WP227 No. 1331 of 2026
1 - Rajkumar Agrawal S/o Late Mangalal Agrawal, Aged About 47 Years R/o
Ward No. 8, Sakti, Tahsil Sakti, District Sakti C.G.
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - Kailash Nath Tiwari S/o Late Chandra Bhushan, Aged About 63 Years R/o
Parijat Castle, Ring Road No. 2, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G.
2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Janjgir - Champa, (Officiating As
A Appropriate Government In Land Acquisition Matter), District Janjgir -
Champa C.G.
3 - Land Acquisition Officer Cum Sub Divisional Officer, Champa (Perform
The Duties As A Collector I. E. Competent Authority Appointed By The
National Highway Authority), District Janjgir - Champa C.G.
4 - Land Acquisition Officer Cum Sub Divisional Officer, Land Acquisition
Incharge, Land Acquisition Branch, Collectorate Janjgir, District Janjgir -
Champa C.G.
5 - Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Bilaspur, National Highway
Authority, D/ 61, H. I. G. 1, Abhilasha Parisar, Behind New Bus Stand, Tifra,
Bilaspur, C.G.
6 - Dharmendra Singh Sidar, S/o Late Dhaneshwar Singh Sidar, Caste Gond,
R/o Tohildih, Tahsil Sakti, District Sakti C.G.
7 - Rameshwar Singh Sidar, S/o Dev Singh Sidar, Aged About 27 Years R/o
Salouni, Tahsil Sakti, District Sakti C.G.
8 - Dhirendra Singh S/o Late Dhaneshwar Singh, R/o Tohildih, Tahsil Sakti,
District Sakti C.G.
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Shri Alok Nigam, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri R.R. Pithwa, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
For Respondent No.5 : Ms. Shreya Pawan Daga on behalf of Shri
Dhiraj K Wankhede, Advocate.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Order on Board

2
14.10.2026
1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated
27.08.2026 passed by the Principal District Judge, Janjgir Champa in
Misc. Civil Case No.30/2026 whereby the application filed by the
respondent No.1 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the
present petitioner as party non applicant in the proceeding has been
allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent
No.1 had submitted an application that his land was acquired for
construction of National Highway and amount of compensation was
deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer before the competent
authority. A dispute arose before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)
with respect to disbursement of the amount, however, the respondent
No.1 is prosecuting a Reference under Section 3H(4) of The National
Highway’s Act,1956 (in short, the Act, 1956) for enhancement of the
compensation and award in favour of the person who is entitled for its
compensation after recovery from non applicant No.5&6. The amount
of compensation and its disbursement was challenged by the
respondent No.1 in WPC No.5782 of 2024 which was disposed of by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.01.2025
directing the SDO (Revenue) to refer the matter to Principal Civil Court
of original jurisdiction in terms of Clause-4 of Section 3H of the Act,
1956 and then Reference proceeding initiated.
3. In the Reference proceeding, the respondent No.1 filed an application
under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the petitioner as party non

3
applicant. The petitioner is having no nexus with the family affairs of
respondent No.1 and other respondents and false allegation have been
levelled against him. Without there being sufficient reason, the
application has been made by the respondent No.1 to implead him as
party non applicant. The petitioner is neither necessary nor proper
party in the proceeding pending between the respondent No.1 and
other respondents and it is their inter-se dispute between them with
respect to apportionment and entitlement of the compensation amount.
Without there being any interest over the subject property, the
petitioner has been directed to be made as a party non applicant. The
impugned order suffers from illegality and perversity and the same is
liable to be set aside and the application for impleading the petitioner
as party non applicant may be dismissed.
4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents
annexed with the petition.
5. The issue revolves around impleadment of party non applicant in the
proceeding pending before the Principal District Judge. It is the claim of
the petitioner that he has no nexus with the family affairs of the
respondents. He is neither connected nor have any interest over their
property. It is the inter-se dispute between the respondent No.1 and
other private respondents with respect to apportionment and
entitlement of the amount of compensation. From perusal of Reference
application under Section 3H(4) of the Act, 1956 (Annexure P/4), it
transpires that the respondent No.1 have made specific averment
against the petitioner and his involvement in the transaction. A detailed
pleading have been made by the respondent No.1 in paragraph 6 to 8

4
and 10 to 12 of their Reference application. In the application filed by
the respondent No.1 before the Principal District Judge under Order 1
Rule 10 CPC, he also sought impleadment of petitioner as party non
applicant on the ground which has already been raised in his
Reference application. The trial court has considered the averment
against the present petitioner considering the averment and pleading
made against him in the Reference application.
6. In Mumbai International Airport Private Limited Vs. Regency
Convention Centra & Hotels Private Limited & Others, 2010(7)SCC
417 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with the issue of impleadment
of party in a suit have considered the proper and necessary party to be
incorporated. In paragraphs 13,15 &16 it was observed as under:
“13. The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that
the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons
against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to
sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief.
Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be
impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule
is subject to the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil
Procedure (`Code' for short), which provides for impleadment of
proper or necessary parties. The said sub-rule is extracted
below:
“10(2) "Court may strike out or add parties. -The Court
may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or
without the application of either party, and on such terms
as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name
of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or
defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person
who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or
defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be
necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and
completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions
involved in the suit, be added."
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 `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 disputes in the

5
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.
16. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the
following observations of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in
Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co. [2007 (10) SCC 82] to contend
that a person need not have any subsisting right or interest in the
suit property for being impleaded as a defendant, and that even
a person who is likely to acquire an interest therein in future, in
appropriate cases, is entitled to be impleaded as a party:
"9. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on a three-
Judge Bench decision of this Court in Kasturi v.
Iyyamperuma [2005(6) SCC 733]. He has submitted that in
this case it has been held that in a suit for specific
performance of a contract for sale of property a stranger or
a third party to the contract cannot be added as defendant
in the suit. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision is clearly
distinguishable. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision can
only be understood to mean that a third party cannot be
impleaded in a suit for specific performance if he has no
semblance of title in the property in dispute. Obviously, a
busybody or interloper with no semblance of title cannot be
impleaded in such a suit. That would unnecessarily
protract or obstruct the proceedings in the suit. However,
the aforesaid decision will have no application where a
third party shows some semblance of title or interest in the
property in dispute.
14........It cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition
that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed by A
against B, a third party C can never be impleaded in that
suit. If C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he
can certainly file an application for impleadment."
7. From perusal of entire material and the order impugned produced by
the petitioner in the present writ petition, this court does not find any
perversity or jurisdictional error in directing the respondent No.1 to
implead the petitioner as party non applicant in the proceeding. The
writ petition therefore fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
inder