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