In so far as the allotment of flats to the 76 Scheduled Caste members and their families is concerned, it is evident from the order under appeal that all of them have been allotted flats, and they have been put in occupation thereof. We are not aware whether it is only these 76 persons who alone, despite their being allotted flats, continue to remain in occupation of the land which the appellants-writ petitioners claim to be the owners of, or whether there are some other encroachers who are in occupation of the subject lands. It is only if all those, who had encroached upon the subject land, were arrayed as parties to the Writ Petition, could this Court have examined the appellants-writ petitioners claim that they are encroachers, and to have considered whether the relief sought for in the Writ Petition could have been granted. The very fact that the relief sought for in W.P. No. 3413 of 2012, includes grant of police aid for shifting the 76 families, shows that, even at the time of institution of the said Writ Petition, the interests of the petitioners was in conflict with these 76 persons who were allotted flats by the GVMC. The relief sought for in the writ petition, in effect, is for eviction of these 76 persons and their families from the subject lands, if need be, with police aid. Such a relief could not, in any event, have been granted without those 76 persons, and others who are in occupation of the subject land, being arrayed as respondents in the Writ Petition even assuming that such a relief for eviction could have been
