Order :

SANJEET PUROHIT, J.

1. Present writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders dated 30.03.2021 (Annex.10) whereby petitioners’ application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC for impleading khatedar of khasra no. 161 as a party was rejected by learned Sub-Divisional Officer (“SDO”), Makrana, Nagaur so also order dated 20.09.2022 (Annex.12) passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer (“BOR”) rejecting revision petitioner of the petitioner.

As a matter of fact, petitioners in both the petitions are party to same proceedings and have challenged same orders by these two petitions. For the sake of convenience, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18952/2022 are taken into consideration for deciding both the writ petitions.

2. While elucidating the factual matrix of the present case, learned counsel for petitioner stated that an application under Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“Act of 1955”) was preferred by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 seeking grant of a new way through khatedari land of petitioners i.e. Khasra No. 162. Learned SDO, vide order dated 08.10.2013, allowed said application and granted new way to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 from khasra No. 162, which resulted in dividing land of Khasra No. 162 into two parts.

2.1 Petitioners preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority (“RAA”), Nagaur, wherein learned RAA vide order dated 21.12.2016 by setting aside order dated 08.10.2013, remanded the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Officer.

2.2 Challenging the said order, respondents preferred revision petition. Learned BOR, vide order dated 19.07.2017 (Annex. 6), affirmed the order dated 21.12.2016 and issued specific directions that while deciding the application filed under Section 251-A of the LR Act, efforts should be made to ensure that the land of Khasra No. 162 is not divided into two parts, the path should be useful for all neighbouring landholders, and that a new path should be approved only in the event of non-availability of any alternative path.

2.3 In the proceedings, after remand, petitioner filed an application seeking to implead khatedar of Khasra No. 161 as party respondent, stating therein that for the purpose of ascertaining availability of the alternate way, which is available alongwith Khasra No. 161, presence of khatedar tenant of Khasra No. 161 is necessary. However, said application was rejected by the learned SDO vide order dated 30.03.2021 (Annex. 10), on the ground that applicant had not sought a way through Khasra No. 161 nor any way from Khasra No. 161 is recorded in the revenue record. It is further observed that as per the site inspection report dated 12.03.2021 (Annex.7), shortest and nearest way does not pass through Khasra No. 161, thus, khatedar tenant of khasra No. 161 is not necessary party. On such grounds, the application for impleadment was rejected.

2.3 Challenging the same, petitioners preferred revision petition and learned BOR, vide order dated 20.09.2022 (Annex. 12), dismissed revision petition on the ground that since applicant had not sought any way through khasra No. 161, khatedar tenant of Khasra No. 161 cannot be impleaded as party in the pending proceedings.

2.4 Challenging said orders dated 30.03.2021 and 20.09.2022, present writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as a matter of fact, learned BOR vide order dated 21.12.2016 has issued specific directions to ascertain availability of alternate way so as to ensure that land of Khasra No. 162 shall not be divided in two parts. It is further stated that since an alternate way is available, which is running alongwith land of Khasra No. 161, thus presence of khatedar tenant of Khasra No. 161 is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of dispute.

3.1 It is contended that adjudication under Order I Rule 10 CPC is not confined merely to the question as to whether the applicant has a direct interest in the suit property, but also extends to examining whether the rights of a person