' The property belonging to the petitioners was acquired by the Government of the Punjab for a housing scheme known as Development of Plots for Industrial Workers Housing Colony at Gujrat.
The possession of the property was taken by the Government in December, 1976, The award was given in June 1977 and the petitioners received the entire payment under the award. In January 1980 the petitioners filed a suit challenging the acquisition in the Court of a Civil Judge at Gujrat.
The parties impleaded by them were the Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Housing, the Deputy Commissioner Gujrat and the Land Acquisition Collector of the Housing Department. The Secretary Housing was served but he did not appear. The Deputy Commissioner filed a written statement saying that the land was not acquired for the Housing Department, The petitioners applied that the Land Acquisition Collector, Housing Department may be struck off as a defendant.
The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit against the Deputy Commissioner but passed ex parte decree against the 'Housing Department, Government of the Punjab as he failed to appear after being served. The Chairman,. Punjab Province Workers' Welfare Board/Secretary, Labour, Government of the Punjab then applied for setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground that the land was acquired for the Workers' Welfare Board and the payment for the land was made by the Board and that he was a necessary party. This application was accepted and the ex parte decree was set aside and the Chairman Punjab Province Workers Welfare Board/ Secretary Labour, Government of the Punjab was impleaded as a party. The petitioners went in revision before the District Judge against that order which was dismissed. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of the setting aside of the ex parte decree and impleading the Chairman, Punjab Province Workers Welfare Board as a necessary party as also the decision of the District Judge in the revision petition.
2. Arguments have been addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Assistant Advocate-General who appeared on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and, even the merits of civil suit before the Civil Judge have been discussed. It is proper. However, to confine the arguments to the question of the setting aside of the ex parte decree and the impleading of respondent No, 2 as patty to the proceedings, for fear of prejudicing the suit which is pending in the lower Court.
3. The payment for the land was made by the Chairman, Punjab Province Workers' Welfare Board.
This payment was even received by the petitioners. The notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner in October, 1976 clearly mentions that the land was being acquired for the purposes of development of plots for industrial workers' housing colony at Gujrat. The respondent No, 2.
Therefore, was not only a proper party but a necessary party particularly after the acquisition of the land property had been completed and the payment was received by the petitioners. After this it can Well be argued that the petitioners were left with no interest in the property as the property had devolved completely on the Chairman, Punjab Province Workers Welfare Board. I will however, not like to go into this question further as this touches upon the merits of the suit.
5. In view of the above considerations the order of the learned Civil Judge and subsequently that of the learned District Judge is not open to question. The writ petition is dismissed.