Siddhartha Varma, J.

The respondents no. 4 and 5 filed a suit for declaration under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and and Reforms Act, 1950, being Suit No. 358 of 2012 (presently number as Suit No. 50/68/78/10 of 2016) and prayed for a declaration that the plaintiffs therein be declared as owners of the property in question. The Subject matter of the suit was plot no. 837/2 area 0.127 hectare Village Sikraul, Pargana Shivpur, Tehsil and District Varanasi.

2. Since the petitioners also claimed to be in physical possession over the suit property as owners, they filed an application for getting themselves impleaded in the Suit. However, when the impleadment application was rejected, they filed a Revision which again was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 47159 of 2016 and challenged the order by which their impleadment application was rejected. This Court on 30.9.2016 passed an order to the effect that the petitioners, if they had any right in the suit property, could file their own independent suit for a declaration and, thereafter, could get that suit connected with the suit instituted by the respondents no. 4 and 5. The order dated 30.9.2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 47159 of 2016 is being reproduced here as under:-

"Heard Sri S.N.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishab Singh, counsel for the caveator, respondent no.6 as also the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

The writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 29.04.2015 rejecting an application, filed by the petitioner for seeking impleadment as a defendant in a suit, under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, filed by the respondent no.6 as also the order dated 08.09.2016, affirming the order, rejecting this impleadment application.

The brief facts relevant to the controversy in the writ petition are that the respondent no.5, (since deceased) and others instituted a suit, under Section 229-B of the Act, for declaration. The declaration was sought, with regard to plot no.837/2.

It is admitted to learned counsel for the parties that neither the plaintiffs nor the petitioners are recorded over the land in dispute. The plaintiffs and the petitioners are defendants of a common ancestor.

It is contended that plot no.837/2 was the joint holding of the parties. However, the plot appears to have been sub divided into 837/1 and 837/2. Both the parties are said to be recorded over plot no.837/1.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this sub division is without any basis and on account of manipulation made by the plaintiffs and in fact no partition has taken place between the parties.

The contention of the plaintiffs on the contrary is that a partition has taken place long back.

The impleadment application was filed on the ground that since plot no.837/2 was a joint holding, the petitioner is also liable to be impleaded as defendant, in the suit.

It is also sought to be contended that the finding that a partition having been effected between the parties, is incorrect.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I do not consider it necessary to go into the various contentions of the parties. Suffice it to state that the dispute in the suit filed by the plaintiffs respondents is with regard to plot no.837/2. It is not in issue that neither the plaintiffs nor the petitioners are recorded over this land. The case of the petitioner is that he is a co-sharer in this plot and therefore, is entitled to be impleaded in the suit.

In my considered opinion, the controversy that is being raised by means of a writ petition, is an unnecessary controversy. The petitioner, admittedly, not being recorded over the plot in question of which he claims to be a co-sharer, is necessarily required to file a suit for declaration in his favour. By getting himself impleaded in this suit for decla