Honble PANWAR, J.—Both these writ petitions involve common question of law and facts and between the same parties and therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both the writ petitions are heard and decided together taking the facts of SBCW No.2235/07 as leading case.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petitions are that a suit for declaration of Khatedari rights in respect of land bearing Khasra No.83 measuring 2 bighas 5 biswas, Khasra No.104 measuring 18 bighas 17 biswas and Khasra No.108 measuring 11 bighas 8 biswas, total 32 bighas and 10 biswas, was filed by respondent No.3 Girdhari in the year 1983 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur. The said suit came to be dismissed on 10.08.1989 on the ground that the land in question has been recorded in the name of Bhaira and brother of the respondent Girdhari who was plaintiff before the SDO and Bhaira said to have expired living behind his legal representation Smt. Koyalee, the wife, who was not impleaded in the suit. Against the order of SDO dismissing the suit, an appeal was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority by respondent Girdhari. In the appeal the respondent UIT filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as also under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking impleadment and taking additional evidence on record. The respondent Revenue Appellate Authority allowed the appeal declaring the respondent Girdhari as Khatedar. The respondent UIT filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue, however, the Board of Revenue remanded the matter to the Revenue Appellate Authority to decide the application filed by the respondent UIT under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and decide the matter afresh. Before the Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioner moved an application seeking impleadment and she was impleaded as party as also Hanuman ram, Dwarka Prasad and Vikram Singh were impleaded as party. However, the Revenue Appellate Authority allowed the appeal observing therein that petitioner Koyalee may pursue her remedy for her rights. The rights of petitioner Smt. Koyalee were not adjudicated. A review petition was filed by the petitioner as also an appeal before the Board of Revenue. The UIT also filed an appeal which was dismissed. The petitioner Koyalee withdrawn the appeal with liberty to raise all contentions before the Revenue Appellate Authority where her review petition was pending. Ultimately, the review petition came to be allowed and that order came to be challenged by the petitioner as also the respondent Girdhari before the Board of Revenue. During the pendency of proceeding before the Board of Revenue, subsequent purchaser of the land in dispute sought to implead as party in the proceeding before the Board of Revenue. In both the writ petitions, the persons sought to be impleaded are father and son. The Board of Revenue allowed the impleadment. Hence these writ petitions.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the record of the case.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the land originally was recorded in the name of Bhaira Ram husband of the petitioner as Khatedar tenant and after death of Bhaira Ram the recorded tenant, the petitioner being the sole legal representative of deceased Bhaira Ram inherited the land by succession and the respondent No.3 Girdhari real brother of deceased Bhaira Ram filed a suit for declaration of khatedari rights knowing well that Bhaira Ram, recorded Khatedar has expired living behind sole legal heir Smt. Koyalee the petitioner and suit was rightly dismissed by the SDO. Thereafter the matter travelled up to Board of Revenue and still the matter is pending before the Board of Revenue. During the interregnum period, the land in question have been sold by the respondent Girdhari to various persons and in turn those purchasers further sold the land to other persons and the subsequent purchasers are seeking impleadment. According to learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document