The main legal point established is that a party who is likely to be affected by a decision in a judicial proceeding is a necessary party, and a party whose presence is necessary for adjudicating a dispute, though not affected by the final decision, is a proper party.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) IN the year, 1993, a notification was issued under Section 14 of the east Punjab (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948 for consolidation of holdings in village Kanjhawala. On 14/11/1996, draft consolidation Scheme was announced by the Consolidation Officer in the village. After finalising the scheme, in the year 1998, repartition was carried out under section 21 of the said Act. Petitioner demanded a plot on the Northern side of the village. His other family members also demanded a plot on the said side. Obviously, aim was for the entire family to be residing in adjoining houses.

( 2 ) CONSOLIDATION Officer allotted plot No. 142/499 admeasuring 2 bigas and 2 biswas to the petitioner, but on the opposite side.

( 3 ) ON 30/6/1997, petitioner filed objections under sub-section 2 of section 21 of the Act against the allotment made. On 28/2/2000, the consolidation Officer decided the objections and allotted another plot to the petitioner, which was again not to the liking of the petitioner. Petitioner felt that the allotment was illegal. He filed the revision petition under section 42 of the Act before the Consolidation Officer. The Revision was allowed vide order dated 20/6/2003. Plot No. 142/94/15 was allotted to the petitioner.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT no. 4 questioned the legality of the order dated 20/6/2003 by filing the writ petition before this Court. His grievance was that he was not heard. The said writ petition which was registered as WPC No. 4473/03 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 20/4/2004 Matter was remanded before the Financial Commissioner with a direction that respondent no. 4 be heard.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT no. 4 was accordingly impleaded as a party before the financial Commissioner. In the remanded proceedings one Ratan S/o Net Ram sough impleadment. Vide order dated 5/4/2005, the Financial Commissioner dismissed application filed by Ratan S/o Net Ram for being impleaded as a party.

( 6 ) ORDER dated 5/4/2005 was challenged before this Court by and under WPC no. 8600/05.

( 7 ) WHEN WP (C) No. 8600/05 was pending, Revision Petition No. 43/2003 - CA filed by respondent no. 3 was disposed of by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 5/8/2005.

( 8 ) IN his Revision Petition, respondent no. 3 had sought inclusion of land comprised in khasra no. 38/6 and 38/7 (pre-consolidation) within the extended abadi. Vide order dated 5/8/2005 the Financial Commissioner accepted the request of respondent no. 3 and aforesaid lands were included within the extended phirny.

( 9 ) WP (C) No. 8600/05 was disposed of on 17. 11. 2005 directing the Financial commissioner to dispose of revision petition filed by the petitioner after taking note of the fact that additional land was available within the extended abadi.

( 10 ) IN the said revision petition filed by the petitioner, respondent no. 3 moved an application under order 1 Rule 10 praying that he should be impleaded as a party in the revision.

( 11 ) BASIS of his claim was that he was the recorded owner of the land comprised in khasra no. 38/6 and 38/7 and since petitioner claimed allotment of a plot on said land, he ought to be impleaded as a party.

( 12 ) PETITIONER opposed the said application by pleading that land comprised in khasra no. 38/6 and 38/7 was in the pre consolidation holding of respondent no. 3. Said fact did not entitle him to be impleaded as a party for the reason after inclusion of land within the extended abadi it had to be allotted to those whose claims remained unsatisfied for allotment of residential plots. Claim of respondent no. 3 for allotment of a residential plot was satisfied when 3 bigas and 8 biswas of land comprised in khasra no. 142/94/6 (2-2), 143/241 (0-6), 142/311 min (0-4) and 142/210 min (0-16), total measuring 3 bigas and 8 biswas was allotted. Petitioner stated that as per the scheme and the Consolidation Rules, no person could be alloted more than 2 bigas and 8 biswas of land within the vil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document