JUDGMENT :

VEERENDER SINGH SIRADHANA, J.

1. By order dt. 15th March, 2016, the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short, the 'Tribunal'), allowed an application for impleadment of third party-New Pinkcity Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. (for short, 'respondent-Society') and prayer for its review declined vide order dt. 17th May, 2017; is the cause for institution of the present writ application praying for the following relief(s):

"It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ application may kindly be allowed and by way of a writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, the impugned order dt. 15.03.2016 and 17.05.2017 passed by the Learned JDA tribunal in reference No. 205/2009 may kindly be quashed and set aside and thereby the application for impleadment submitted by the society may also kindly be dismissed.

Any other orders directions or relief in favour of the petitioner as may be deemed fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case, may kindly be granted."

2. Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are that: the petitioner claiming himself recorded 'Khatedar' of land bearing Khasra No. 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 and 164, in Village Chainpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur, has filed a Reference Petition before the Tribunal. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that land acquisition proceedings with reference to subject land were initiated' under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short, 'the Act of 1953'). Notice under Sec. 4 and 6 were issued on 26th April, 1969 and 25th February, 1973, respectively. Award was made on 2nd April, 1981. On an application for regularization of his possession on a part of subject land measuring 9500 Sq. Yrds., the State Government made an order dt. 23rd October, 2008, directing the respondent-JDA to issue a lease deed for land in possession measuring 9500 Sq. Yrds., subject to withdrawal of writ application instituted by the petitioner. The State Government in continuation of the order dt. 23rd October, 2008, made another order dt. 14th May, 2014, directing the respondent-JDA to issue lease deed in favour of the petitioner wherein claim of the respondent-Society was rejected after due examination. According to the petitioner, the order dt. 14th May, 2014, was not challenged any further by the respondent-Society. Pending the proceedings on the reference petition aforesaid; an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, was instituted by the respondent-Society), which has been granted by the Tribunal vide impugned order dt. 15th March, 2016 and an application for review of the order dt. 15th March, 2016, has been declined vide order dt. 17th March, 2017; of which the petitioner is aggrieved of.

3. Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Sarthak Rastogi, emphatically argued that impugned order made by the Tribunal dt. 15th March, 2016 granting the application for impleadment as party and declining its review prayed vide order dt. 17th May, 2017; are orders, absolutely illegal, invalid and arbitrary so also contrary to the well settled principles of law. Learned counsel referring to the prayer clause of the reference petition instituted, pending before the Tribunal, asserted that no relief has been prayed by the petitioner against respondent-Society, and therefore, respondent No. 2, is neither a necessary party nor a proper party.

4. That apart, the petitioner is a dominus litus, and therefore, has a right to choose whom to implead as a party respondent/non-applicant and determine the relief prayed for. The Respondent-Society, if has any right or title in the subject land involved herein, is required to undertake independent proceedings.

5. Referring to order-sheets dt. 17th February, 2012, 23rd March, 2012, 1st may, 2012, 12th July, 2012, 23rd August, 2012, 23rd September, 2012 and 11th December, 2018; learned counsel insistently argued that the so called agreement dt. 21st January, 1976, w