- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Collector v. Bagathi Krishna Rao
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondents (original plaintiffs) instituted O.S. No. 26 of 1994 before the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, seeking a declaration of title and possession over 8.90 acres of land situated in the erstwhile Zamindari of Tarla Estate, Srikakulam District, together with a permanent injunction restraining interference with their possession. The appellants (original defendants) contended that the land was forest land that had vested in the State of Andhra Pradesh pursuant to G.O. No. 650 dated 25-9-1975, and produced the Gazette Notification in support.
The suit was decreed on 28-7-2000. Appeal Suit No. 121 of 2000 preferred by the defendants was dismissed on 15-4-2005 by the First Additional Judge, Srikakulam. A further Second Appeal (S.A. No. 122 of 2006) filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was also dismissed on 10-4-2006. The present civil appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by three officials—the District Collector, the Mandal Revenue Officer and the District Forest Officer—challenging the High Court’s dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the second appeal before the High Court was maintainable when the State of Andhra Pradesh, a necessary party claiming title to the disputed land, was not impleaded as an appellant and several private defendants were also omitted.
- Whether the High Court erred in deciding the second appeal without framing a substantial question of law as mandated by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- The absence of the State of Andhra Pradesh as a party rendered the second appeal non-maintainable; the appeal should therefore be remanded for proper impleadment.
- To meet the ends of justice, the Supreme Court should permit the appellants to file an application for impleadment of the State either before it or, preferably, before the High Court after remand.
Respondents’ Arguments
- Opposed the appellants’ request for remand and the late impleadment of the State, contending that the High Court’s decision should stand.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Punjab v. Okara Grain Buyers' Syndicate Ltd., AIR 1964 SC 669 | Relief sought against a State must be in a suit against the State itself. | Cited to show that the State of Andhra Pradesh was a necessary party because title to the land was claimed by the State. |
| Ranjeet Mal v. Northern Railway, (1977) 1 SCC 484; AIR 1977 SC 1701 | Union of India is a necessary party where a writ affects it; absence renders the proceeding defective. | Used by the Court to analogise that officials alone cannot represent the State in litigation affecting its rights. |
| State of Kerala v. General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras, (1976) 4 SCC 265; AIR 1976 SC 2538 | Similar principle that the proper governmental entity must be a party. | Supports the view that omission of the State is fatal to maintainability. |
| Kali Prasad Agarwalla v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 628; AIR 1989 SC 1530 | Courts should not decide questions affecting State interests in the absence of the State. | Illustrated why the Supreme Court refrained from addressing merits without the State being impleaded. |
| Sangamesh Printing Press v. Taluk Development Board, (1999) 6 SCC 44 | Courts must first decide applications for impleadment of necessary parties before proceeding on merits. | Relied on to justify remanding the matter so that the High Court can consider impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. |
| Chief Conservator of Forests v. Collector, (2003) 3 SCC 472; AIR 2003 SC 1805 | Writ petition cannot be entertained without impleading the State when relief is sought against it. | Analogous reasoning applied to civil appeals—officials alone cannot substitute the State. |
| Bal Niketan Nursery School v. Kesari Prasad, (1987) 3 SCC 587; AIR 1987 SC 1970 | Court may permit impleadment of a necessary party at any stage in exceptional circumstances. | Provided the basis for allowing the appellants to seek impleadment even at the Supreme Court stage, though remand was preferred. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court held that Section 79 CPC, Order 27 Rule 1 CPC, and Article 300 of the Constitution mandate that suits involving governmental interests must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the State, not merely by individual officers. The original suit sought a declaration of title and possession over land that the State also claimed under G.O. No. 650 (25-9-1975); hence the State of Andhra Pradesh was a necessary party throughout the litigation.
The second appeal to the High Court was filed only by three departmental officers. Neither the State nor several private defendants from the trial court were impleaded. Relying on the cited precedents, the Court concluded that such non-joinder was fatal, rendering the second appeal not maintainable.
Additionally, the High Court had disposed of the second appeal without formulating a substantial question of law, contrary to the statutory requirement under Section 100 CPC. This procedural lapse further vitiated the High Court’s judgment.
Balancing procedural propriety with the interest of justice, the Court decided that the appropriate remedy was to set aside the High Court’s decision and remand the matter, granting the appellants liberty to file an application to implead the State of Andhra Pradesh before the High Court, which would then consider the application and decide the appeal afresh after framing the requisite substantial question(s) of law.
Holding and Implications
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 10-4-2006 in S.A. No. 122 of 2006, and remanded the case to the High Court for fresh disposal after framing substantial questions of law, permitting the appellants to seek impleadment of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Implications: The decision reinforces that (i) the proper governmental entity must be a party whenever relief affects State interests, and (ii) High Courts must strictly adhere to the requirement of framing substantial questions of law in second appeals. The ruling has a direct procedural impact on the parties but does not create new substantive law.
Order
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10-4-2006 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Second Appeal No. 122 of 2006 by which it dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant affirming the judgments and order of the first appellate court dated 15-4-2005 passed in Appeal Suit No. 121 of 2000 and of the trial court dated 28-7-2000 passed in OS No. 26 of 1994.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the respondents herein filed Original Suit No. 26 of 1994 for seeking declaration of title and possession of the suit land admeasuring Ac. 8.90 cents situate within the erstwhile zamindari of Tarla Estate in Srikakulam District and for other consequential relief i.e permanent injunction from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land, before the Senior Civil Judge at Sompeta.
3. The appellant-defendants filed written statement contending that the suit land being forest land had vested in the State of Andhra Pradesh and in order to substantiate the said averment it annexed the copy of the Gazette Notification, G.O No. 650 dated 25-9-1975 according to which possession and enjoyment of land in dispute was shown to be in favour of the Forest Department.
4. The learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 28-7-2000 decreed the suit. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred Appeal Suit No. 121 of 2000 before the First Additional Judge, Srikakulam District mainly on the ground that the respondent-plaintiffs were not in possession and enjoyment of the suit land and it was a government land in physical possession of the Forest Department. However, the appeal preferred by the appellants stood dismissed vide judgment and order dated 15-4-2005. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred second appeal before the High Court which has also been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 10-4-2006. Hence, this appeal.
5. Shri Anoop G. Chaudhari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri R. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents have made claims and counterclaims on various issues and merit of the case. However, we are of the view that the High Court entertained the second appeal which was not maintainable for more than one reason and, particularly, that relief sought by the respondent-plaintiffs was declaration of title in respect of the suit land which according to the appellants has been in favour of the State of Andhra Pradesh and in physical possession of the Forest Department in view of the Notification dated 25-9-1975. However, the State of Andhra Pradesh had not been the appellant party before the High Court though it was Defendant 1 before the trial court as well as before the first appellate court. A large number of private defendants in the original suit were also not impleaded as respondents in second appeal before the High Court.
6. The second appeal has been filed by the three appellants, namely, the District Collector, the Mandal Revenue Officer and the District Forest Officer impleading the original two plaintiffs as the respondents. The original Defendants 4 to 11 had not been impleaded before the High Court. Thus, the question does arise as to whether the appeal in the form it had been presented before the High Court could be entertained without the State of Andhra Pradesh being the appellant party. More so, the High Court did not frame any substantial question of law before deciding the appeal though making reference to the pleadings taken in the second appeal, the Court has discussed and decided the question of law raised therein.
7. Admittedly, it is not a case where the order passed by the statutory authority was sought to be quashed in the suit, the relief sought in OS No. 26 of 1994 had been as under:
“(a) For declaration that the plaintiffs have title and possession over the suit land.
(b) For consequential relief of permanent injunction against all the defendants restraining them and their agents, subordinates, servants and workmen from ever interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit lands of the plaintiffs.
(c)-(d)***”
Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid relief clauses that the plaintiffs had sought declaration of title and possession over the suit land and further consequential relief of permanent injunction. Thus, in case the title is also claimed by the State Government with it, we are of the prima facie view that the State of Andhra Pradesh was a necessary party.
8. Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter “CPC”) specifically deals with suits by and against the Government and provides that in suits by and against the Government, the authority to be impleaded as the plaintiff or the defendant, would be the Union of India or the Central Government or the State or the State Government.
9. Proviso to Rule 9 of Order 1 provides that non-joinder of necessary party is fatal. Rule 1 of Order 27 CPC deals with suits by or against the Government or by officers in their official capacity. It provides that in any suit by or against the Government, the plaint or the written statement shall be signed by such person as the Government may like by general or special order authorise in that behalf and shall be verified by any person whom the Government may so appoint.
10. Article 300 of the Constitution deals with legal proceedings by or against the Union of India or the State and provides that in a suit by or against the Government, the authority to be named as the plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be; in the case of the Central Government, the Union of India and in the case of the State Government, the State, which is suing or is being sued.
11. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Okara Grain Buyers Syndicate Ltd. AIR 1964 SC 669 held that if relief is sought against the State, suit lies only against the State, but, it may be filed against the Government if the Government acts under colour of the legal title and not as a sovereign authority e.g in a case where the property comes to it under a decree of the Court.
12. In Ranjeet Mal v. Northern Railway (1977) 1 SCC 484, AIR 1977 SC 1701, this Court considered a case where the writ petition had been filed challenging the order of termination from service against the General Manager of the Northern Railway without impleading the Union of India. The Court held as under:
“7. The Union of India represents the railway administration. The Union carries on administration through different servants. These servants all represent the Union in regard to activities whether in the matter of appointment or in the matter of removal. It cannot be denied that any order which will be passed on an application under Article 226 which will have the effect of setting aside the removal will fasten liability on the Union of India, and not on any servant of the Union. Therefore, from all points of view, the Union of India was rightly held by the High Court to be a necessary party. The petition was rightly rejected by the High Court.”
(See also State of Kerala v. Southern Railway (1976) 4 SCC 265, AIR 1976 SC 2538.)
13. In Kali Prasad Agarwalla v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. 1989 Supp (1) SCC 628, AIR 1989 SC 1530 while considering an issue whether the suit lands had vested, free from encumbrance in the State consequent upon the issuance of notification under Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, this Court did not entertain the case observing as under:
“9. In our opinion, it is unnecessary to consider the first question and indeed it is not proper also to consider the question in the absence of the State which is a necessary party for adjudication of that dispute. The State of Bihar is not impleaded as a party to the suit and we, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion on the first question.”
14. In Sangamesh Printing Press v. Taluk Development Board (1999) 6 SCC 44 the State was not impleaded as a party before the trial court in a money recovery suit. The same was dismissed on the ground of non-impleadment of necessary party. During the appeal, an application was made under Order 1 Rule 10 praying for impleadment of the State, however the High Court decided the matter on merits without considering the same. This Court observed as under:
“9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the High Court should have decided the appellant's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and, thereafter, proceeded to hear the appeal in question. Not having disposed of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 has caused serious prejudice to the appellant. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore Regular First Appeal No. 29 of 1987 to its file. The High Court should first deal with the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC which is pending before it and then proceed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.”
15. While considering the similar case in Chief Conservator of Forests v. Collector (2003) 3 SCC 472, AIR 2003 SC 1805 this Court accepted the submission that writ cannot be entertained without impleading the State if relief is sought against the State. This Court had drawn the analogy from Section 79 CPC, which directs that the State shall be the authority to be named as the plaintiff or the defendant in a suit by or against the Government and Section 80 thereof directs notice to the Secretary of that State or the Collector of the district before the institution of the suit and Rule 1 of Order 27 lays down as to who should sign the pleadings. No individual officer of the Government under the scheme of the Constitution nor under CPC, can file a suit nor initiate any proceeding in the name and the post he is holding, who is not a juristic person.
16. In Bal Niketan Nursery School v. Kesari Prasad (1987) 3 SCC 587, AIR 1987 SC 1970 this Court held that the application for impleadment of a necessary party can be filed at any stage of proceeding provided the Court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances prevailing in the case warrant the impleadment.
17. In view of the above, the State of Andhra Pradesh was a necessary party. Thus, the second appeal filed by the officials was not maintainable.
18. The High Court decided the appeal without considering this important aspect of the matter. Shri Anoop G. Chaudhari, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that in order to meet the ends of justice, this Court should grant indulgence to the appellants to file an application for impleadment before this Court, and in case it is not willing to do so, the judgment and order of the High Court be set aside and the case be remanded to the High Court and the appellants be given an opportunity to file an application for impleadment of the State therein. Shri R. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel opposed the suggestion made by Shri Anoop G. Chaudhari.
19. The State of Andhra Pradesh was a party before the trial court as well as before the first appellate court. In such a fact situation and in order to meet the ends of justice, an opportunity should be given to the appellants to move an application for impleadment of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Such a course is in public interest as the State which also claims to have title over the suit land cannot be deprived of the right to present its case before the Court in case it loses the land. However, it would be desirable that such a course is adopted before the High Court.
20. In view of the above, we set aside the judgment and order of the High Court passed in Second Appeal No. 122 of 2006 dated 10-4-2006 and remand the case to the High Court to decide afresh after framing the substantial question of law. The appellants are permitted to file an application for impleadment of the State of Andhra Pradesh as the appellant and if such an application is filed, the High Court shall be at liberty to consider it in accordance with law. With these observations, the appeal is allowed. No costs.
Alert