1. Application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for khatedar of khasra no. 161 in proceedings under Section 251-A, Rajasthan Tenancy Act. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 609
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANJEET PUROHIT, J.
Arjun Ram, S/o. Shri Heera Ram – Petitioner
Versus
Lichhman Ram, S/o. Shri Ramkaran – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18952 of 2022 Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18888 of 2022
Decided On : 13-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Saroj Patel, Ms. Nandipna Gehlot.
For the Respondent: Ms. Sweta Purohit.
For the Petitioner: Ms. Saroj Patel, Ms. Nandipna Gehlot.
For the Respondent: Ms. Sweta Purohit.
Under Section 251-A of the Tenancy Act, authorities must evaluate all feasible alternative routes to determine "absolute necessity." Owners of plots through which alternative access may exist are necessary parties under Order I Rule 10 CPC for comprehensive adjudication, regardless of the applicant's specific requests or revenue records.
Headnote:(A) Tenancy Act, 1955 - Section 251-A; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I Rule 10(2) - Grant of new way - Requirement of "absolute necessity" - Authority is required to undertake a comprehensive and comparative evaluation of all feasible alternative routes before arriving at a conclusion; the convenience or preference of the applicant is not the sole criteria; expression “necessity” must be construed as absolute necessity and not mere convenience. (Paras 6, 6.1, 6.2)
(B) Impleadment of parties - Necessary and Proper party - A necessary party is one without whom no effective order can be passed - If a site inspection report indicates the possibility of an alternative route through a particular plot, the owner of said plot is a necessary party for complete adjudication; failure to implead such a party would render the decision-making process incomplete. (Paras 7, 7.1, 7.2)
(C) Revenue Records - Absence of pre-existing path - Provision for creation of a new way where necessity demands implies that such a way may not be pre-existing or reflected in revenue records; thus, absence of a recorded path is not a valid ground to reject an application for impleadment to ascertain the possibility of an alternate way. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
An application for the grant of a new way through a specific plot of land was filed under the relevant tenancy law. Following a remand from higher authorities with directions to ensure the land was not divided and to explore alternative paths, the petitioner sought to implead the owner of an adjacent plot as a party, asserting that an alternative way existed along that land. The Sub-Divisional Officer and the Board of Revenue rejected the impleadment application on the grounds that the applicant had not specifically sought a way through that plot and no such way was recorded in the revenue records.
Findings of Court:
The reasons for rejecting the impleadment application were found to be perverse and erroneous. The court held that the authority must evaluate all feasible alternative routes, and since the site inspection report explicitly showed a potential route through the adjacent plot, the owner of that plot is a necessary party.
Issues: Whether the owner of a plot through which an alternative access route may exist is a necessary party under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in proceedings for the grant of a way under Section 251-A of the Tenancy Act, regardless of whether such a route was specifically requested by the applicant or recorded in revenue records.
Ratio Decidendi: The grant of a way under the Tenancy Act depends on "absolute necessity," necessitating a comprehensive evaluation of all feasible alternatives. A party is "necessary" if no effective order can be passed without them. Consequently, the owner of land through which a possible alternative route exists must be impleaded to ensure a complete and final decision, as the authority's duty to find the most suitable path overrides the specific preference of the applicant or the current state of revenue records.
Result: Writ petitions allowed. Orders dated 30.03.2021 and 20.09.2022 quashed and set aside. Application for impleadment allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- land and revenue
-
constitutional law
-
writ jurisdiction
- article 226 of constitution of india (Para 10)
-
writ jurisdiction
- revenue law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued impleadment necessary for effective adjudication; respondents contended no way sought through that khasra and application aimed at delay. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Court held reasons for rejecting impleadment perverse; necessity under Section 251-A is absolute necessity, not mere convenience; alternative routes must be evaluated. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. A necessary party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is one without whom no effective order can be passed; khatedar through whose land alternate way may pass is necessary. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
5. Writ petitions allowed; orders rejecting impleadment quashed; application for impleadment allowed; proceedings expedited. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
6. What is the test for impleading a necessary party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in land acquisition proceedings?
A necessary party is one without whom no effective order can be passed; a proper party is one whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. What is the meaning of 'necessity' under Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act?
Necessity under Section 251-A must be 'absolute necessity' and not mere convenience or preference of a party. (Para 5 , 6 )
8. Can an application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 be rejected solely because the applicant did not seek a way through the land of the proposed party?
No; under Section 251-A the authority must evaluate all feasible alternative routes; the applicant's preference alone is not determinative. (Para 5 , 6 )
9. Are khatedars of lands through which alternative access routes may be determined necessary parties under Section 251-A?
Yes; khatedars of such lands are required to be impleaded as necessary parties for complete adjudication. (Para 9 )
10. Can absence of a pre-existing way in revenue records be a ground to reject an impleadment application?
No; Section 251-A contemplates creation of a new way where necessity demands; such a way may not be pre-existing or reflected in revenue records. (Para 8 )
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
