Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 2198
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Ganesh Ram Meena, J.
Shyam Lal (Deceased), Pooran - Petitioner
Versus
Pancham and ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12792 of 2021
Decided On : 08-05-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Dheeraj Singhal
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - Section 230 - Writ petition challenging orders of Board of Revenue pertaining to impleadment - The Board of Revenue allowed impleadment of a party with interest in the land, asserting their role as necessary parties in proceedings affecting property rights. (Paras 4, 8, and 10)
(B) Necessary parties - The principle establishes that any person having interest in the property under dispute is a necessary party, and failure to implead them may affect their rights. (Paras 7 and 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner challenged the Board of Revenue's rulings allowing a respondent to be impleaded as a necessary party in a suit regarding khatedari rights following a revision petition. The respondents' claims were based on their ancestral ties to the disputed property, which the petitioners disputed.
Findings of Court:
The court found the Board of Revenue's decisions were not illegal; it emphasized the necessity of including interested parties to avoid denying their rights.
Issues: Whether the applicant/respondent was a necessary and affected party entitled to impleadment in the ongoing suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that a person with an interest in property affected by a dispute must be included in the proceedings to ensure fair adjudication of rights.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition details and background (Para 1) |
| 2. background of the revenue suit and appeals (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. petitioner's arguments against impleadment (Para 5) |
| 4. court's reasoning on necessary parties in proceedings (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. conclusion on writ petition dismissal (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
Ganesh Ram Meena, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioners assailing the order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, in Revision Petition No. 2698/2016/Dholpur and the order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, in Review Petition No. 1036/2019/Dholpur.
2. The facts borne out from the pleadings are that the father of the petitioners namely; Shyam Lal filed a suit for declaration of khatedari rights and correction of entries in the revenue records for the land in question. The suit was dismissed by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Dholpur on 17.10.2021. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2021, the plaintiffs/petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur, which was allowed vide order dated 24.12.2013 and the matter was remanded for fresh decision to the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Dholpur.
3. During the pendency of the suit for decision afresh after being remanded by the Revenue Appellate Authority, an application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with section 151 CPC was filed by the respondent-Pancham on 16.02.2015 for impleading him as a defendant being a necessary and effected party. The Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Dholpur, dismissed the aforesaid application vide order dated 15.03.2016.
4. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.03.2016 of dismissal of the application for impleadment, the applicant/respondent, preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, under section 230 of the RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT , 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955') which was allowed vide order dated 05.02.2019 and the Board of Revenue set aside the order dated 15.03.2016 and directed the trial court to implead the applicant as a defendant in the suit proceedings. Against the order dated 05.02.2019, the plaintiffs/petitioners preferred a review petition under section 229 of the Act of 1955, which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.01.2021.
5. Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/petitioners submits that the applicant/respondent Pancham is neither a necessary nor an effected party and, therefore, the order of the Board of Revenue allowing the application of impleadment of the applicant/respondent is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law. He further submits that the plaintiff/petitioners has no concern with the land in question and in case he (respondent-Pancham) claims any rights over the land in question, he should file a separate civil suit.
6. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners and gone through the entire material made available to the Court.
7. It is a well settled law that a person having interest in a land or property in question and by adjudication of any dispute with regard to the said property, and if it affects the rights of the plaintiffs/petitioners, in any manner then certainly he is a necessary and effected party and is supposed to be impleaded as party in the proceedings. The Court of learned Sub Divisional Officer, Dholpur, while dismissing the application of the applicant/respondent for impleadment observed that in case the application for impleadment is allowed then there would be amendments in the written statements and the proceeding has to go through again for evidence etc., which will create inordinate delay in disposal of the proceedings and will be a kind of retrial of the suit. The trial court has further observed that the applicants are in no manner related to the property in question as they are not members of the family of 'Januti' (Faut).
8. For impleadment the rights and interest of an applicant over the property in ques
