JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Pramod Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ashish Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate, holding brief of Shri Krishna Mishra, learned counsel for the impleadment applicants, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and perused the record.

2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the order proposed to be passed hereunder, this Court proceeded to finally decide this matter at the admission stage with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, without calling for their respective affidavits, with liberty to the respondents to move recall application, in case, the details of the facts as given in the present writ petition are found incorrect.

Order on Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.3 of 2021

1. The instant impleadment application has been moved by three applicants namely Rajendra Prasad, Ram Raja & Rajesh sons of Jawahar Lal, claiming their right and title over the property in question i.e. Plot No. 4875/1 area 0.69 hectare on the basis of succession that originally plot No. 4875 area 4-5-0 was recorded in the name of Gaya Prasad, who was grand-father of the present applicants. During Consolidation proceeding, by manipulation, some portion of original plot has incorrectly been recorded as Plot No. 4875/1 area 0.69 hectare. Applicants are in the possession over the entire area i.e. 4-5-0 of Plot No. 4875 and they are paying revenue rent. Accordingly, they wants to be impleaded in the array of the parties in the present writ petition and desired to be heard in opposition and claims that their presence before this Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the present matter.

2. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of Gaya Prasad (predecessor in the interest of the applicants) was already ordered to be deleted from the revenue record vide order dated 14.11.1977 passed by Consolidation Officer and in his place names of Dwarika Prasad and three others were ordered to be recorded over Plot No. 4875/1 area 0.69 hectare. At subsequent stage, Dwarika Prasad and his brothers had executed a registered sale deed dated 22.08.1983 in favour of Smt. Battu Devi, who had also got her name mutated in the revenue record and, being recorded as tenure holder, she had executed a registered sale deed dated 22.02.2005 in favour of Shankarlal (petitioner herein) who has also got the mutation order dated 07.04.2005 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer in a proceeding under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953(in brevity "U.P.C.H. Act").

3. In this view of the matter, since 14.11.1977, name of the predecessor in the interest of the present applicants was deleted by the judicial order. At this juncture, right and title of the present applicants cannot be recognized by this Hon'ble Court, directly, without it's adjudication by the competent Courts. Present applicants, in case, have any grievance with respect to the entries and judicial orders passed in favour of the petitioner and predecessors in his interest, they can file an appropriate application/suit before the competent Courts to get their right and title declared by way of taking suitable steps under the law as advised.

4. In this conspectus as above, I do not find any force in the impleadment application moved by the applicants. Their presence before this Court cannot be said to be necessary in order to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in present writ petition. As such, they cannot be said to be vitally interested person in the present matter, and have got no right to be heard in opposition. Accordingly, instant impleadment application is rejected in limine.

Order on Writ Petition

1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art