1. The Petitioner Puneet Kumar Sood has filed writ petition before Single Bench in which he has prayed for quashment of various orders in the matter of mutation passed by the Board of Revenue, Gram Panchayat, Tehsildar, etc. Following prayers have been made:-

"(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature thereof it be declared that after the passing of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1989 the judgments of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer dated 8.3.1988 (Ann.10) and 4.9.2000 (Ann.11) have become non est and ineffective and the order dated 23.1.1977 passed by the Gram Panchayat Chitwadi, has been restored and revived and the judgments of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer dated 8.3.1988 (Annexure-10) and 4.9.2000 (Annexure-11) may kindly be quashed and set aside;

(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature thereof the order dated 24.5.2005 (Ann.13) passed by Tehsildar, Chomu with regard to Mutation No.379 may kindly be ordered to be quashed;

(iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature thereof the order dated 26.5.2005 passed by Tehsildar, Chomu on Mutation No.282 of village Morija, Tehsil Chomu may kindly be ordered to be quashed.

(iv) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature thereof the Application dated 16.5.2005 submitted by Tehsildar, Chomu in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Chomu for holding proceedings under Section 30-E of Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 and the proceedings being held by the Sub Divisional Officer, Chomu on the basis of the same may kindly be ordered to be quashed;

(v) Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deem just, appropriate and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(vi) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
The basic dispute, as admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, is with respect to the mutation.

2. In the petition preferred by Puneet Kumar Sood, Smt. Lad Kanwar and Smt. Pyare Kanwar filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for their impleadment as respondents claiming themselves to be daughters of Ganga Singh. The applicants prayed in the application for their impleadment on the basis that the property in question with regard to which ceiling proceedings were initiated, is the property of a Joint Hindu Family and they are also co-sharers having undivided share but mutation entry was never opened in their name and when ceiling proceedings were initiated, no opportunity was afforded to them and present applicants have filed suit for partition for the self same subject property impleading present respondents as party defendants, which is pending adjudication before the trial court. If any order is passed in favour of the petitioner in the instant case, who is also claiming his right on the basis of purchase made by him by the sale-deed, their rights may be jeopardized.

3. The application was objected to by the respondents in the petition as well as by the petitioner on the ground that the property was never the property belonging to Joint Hindu Family as claimed by the applicants. They were never impleaded as party in the proceedings initiated under ceiling law, when the matter proceeded upto the Board of Revenue or in the mutation proceedings.

4. The Single Bench has allowed the application on the ground that though applicants are not ordinarily to be impleaded as party but this fact cannot be ruled out that subject property in question, as alleged by the applicants, was Joint Hindu Family and they are claiming themselves to be co-sharers and by the rights decided in the present proceedings, prejudice may be caused to them. As such, their impleadment has been allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the intra court appeal has been preferred.

5. Shri Paree