The court upheld the Board of Revenue's decision that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings, affirming the dismissal of his application.

Judgment :

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity “the BoR”) whereby, while allowing the revision petition preferred by the respondents No.1 and 2, the order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur (for short “the Commissioner”) allowing an application filed by the petitioner and the proforma respondents No.16 to 20 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, has been set aside.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the State of Rajasthan filed an application under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1956”) against the respondents No.1 to 13 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Karauli (for brevity “the SDO”) which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 01.10.2021. It was assailed by the State by way of an appeal in the Court of Additional Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur wherein, the petitioner and the proforma respondents No.16 to 20 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking their impleadment as party respondents on the ground that the subject land comprises of “Charagah”. The application was allowed by the Commissioner vide order dated 09.03.2022 which has been set aside by the BoR in the revision petition preferred by the respondents No.1 and 2 vide its order dated 26.07.2024.

3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned has been passed by the BoR without appreciating that to bring true facts before the Commissioner as to the nature of the subject land, he is a necessary party and in view thereof, the order impugned dated 26.07.2024 deserves to be quashed and set aside. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 26.07.2024 be quashed and set aside and the order dated 09.03.2022 be restored.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. The application filed by the State Government under Section 136 of the Act of 1956 was based on the premise that the subject land was recorded in the revenue record as Sivaychak; but, without its proper allotment in favour of the respondents No.1 to 12, it was mutated in their name. The application was dismissed by the SDO on the premise that the scope of enquiry is beyond the scope of Section 136 of the Act of 1956.

7. While dismissing the application and setting aside the order dated 09.03.2022, the BoR observed that the lis is in between the State Government and the respondents No.1 to 12 and the Tehsildar being land holder, is under an obligation to bring the correct facts before the Court. It was observed that the applicants are neither necessary nor, proper party to the litigation and their impleadment would lead to unwarranted complications.

8. After perusal of the material on record, this Court is in agreement with the findings recorded by the BoR. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to satisfy as to how, he is either a necessary party or even a formal party for proper and effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the matter. This Court does not find the order impugned dated 26.07.2024 to be suffering from any such illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.