JUDGMENT

S. PANDA, J. : Challenge has been made in this writ petition to the order dated 30.10.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nimapara in C.S. No.157 of 2007 allowing the application filed by the present opposite parties 2 to 6 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code to implead them as defendants in the suit.

2. Before proceeding with the contentions raised by the parties which are pleaded in the record, the following facts of the case are to be stated:

The petitioners as plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of their occupancy right over the suit land, alterna¬tively declaration of title by way of adverse possession, perma¬nent injunction along with other reliefs. They further pleaded that the disputed land was the ex-intermediary estate of late Raybahadur Lokanath Mishra of Markendeswar Sahi, Puri. The suit land was fallow and non-productive land and its status was Anaba¬di. One Shayam Swain who was a settled rayati of village Bamera approached the ex-landlord to grant him lease in respect of the suit land under Sabik Khata No.105. The ex-landlord granted him lease in respect of Ac.1.20 decs. in Sabik Plot no.423 and Ac.1.50 decs. in Sabik Plot No.54 under Sabik Khata No.105 of Mouza-Bamera for agricultural purposes. Accordingly, on receipt of due Salami lease was granted in respect of the said land on 15.8.1943. The said Shayam Swain is the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and he converted the Anabadi land to agricul¬tural land and continued his possession and cultivated the same till his death. After his death, his successors-in-interest including the plaintiffs cultivated the land openly to the knowl¬edge of all and acquired occupancy right over the same. During Hal Settlement Operation, the land was illegally recorded in the name of the State with a note of possession of the plaintiffs and others in respect of Hal Plot No.844/1120, Plot No.203/200 and Plot No.844/1201. The Kissam of the land was described as Gramya Jungle. Though major part of the suit land is agricultural land, some trees planted by the plaintiffs are standing on a portion of the land. The local R.I. threatened to evict the plaintiffs due to note of possession of the defendants. Therefore, they filed lease cases before the Tahasildar, Kakatpur and also filed the suit before the trial Court for the aforesaid relief. During pendency of the suit, opposite parties 2 to 6 filed an applica¬tion under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code to implead them as proper parties to the suit as the lands are communal lands and being used by the villagers as grazing field. They also raised their objections in the lease cases before the Tahasildar to protect their right. To their application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiffs filed objections stating therein that the allegations made by the villagers were false. The nature of the land in question was neither communal nor Gochar. It was recorded as Abadjogya Anabadi. Hence, the applicants were not necessary parties to the suit and their application was liable to be rejected.

3. Considering the contentions of the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nimapara allowed the petitioner filed by opposite parties 2 to 6 holding that the land in respect of Khata No.175 is recorded as Rakhit and Plot No.203/1200 is recorded as Gramya Jungle so also Plot No.844/1201. Since the villagers have direct interest in the suit schedule land and they claimed to be the representative of the village, they are to be impleaded as defendants.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioners submitted that from the ROR it appears that the land was recorded as Abadajogya Anabadi and it was not at all communal in nature. Therefore, opposite parties 2 to 6 should not be impleaded as defendants to the suit. He further submitted that since the plaintiffs claimed the relief of occupancy status in respect of the suit land, the presen