JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)

The petitioners, in paragraph no. 1, of the writ petition have made the following pleading:

“1. That the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 21.05.2018 allegedly passed in Case No. 27 under Rule 109(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the order dated 01.02.2001 passed by respondent no. 3 and further the order dated 23.08.2017 passed by respondent no. 2 whereby the land of petitioners has been recorded in the name of State Government and further recording the name of private respondent no. 5 as Class-4 tenure, are desirous to challenge the same invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Hon'ble High Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India of following facts and circumstances hereunder. True and correct copy of the khatauni is being marked and annexed as Annexure No. 1."

2. Apparently, as pleaded, the petitioners seem to challenge the order dated 21.05.2018 passed in Case No. 27 under Rule 109 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, which happens to be the process of enforcing the order passed by the Consolidation Authorities on merits; as well as challenge is also made to the order dated 23.08.2017 passed by respondent no. 2. In the relief clause, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:

“(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the case and to quash the impugned order dated 01.02.2001 and order dated 23.08.2017 (Annexure No. 2 Colly.) passed by respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 2 respectively.

(II) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case as also in the interest of justice.

(III) Allow the writ petition with costs."

3. On scrutiny of the impugned order under challenge, i.e. order dated 23.08.2017, it is clear that it is an order passed in a Revision preferred by one Mr. Avtar Singh, who is the applicant of the Impleadment Application listed today, being Revision No. 09/2016-17 “Avtar Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others", whereby the Revisional Court has affirmed the order dated 01.02.2001 passed in Case No. 993/1995-96 passed by the Consolidation Officer in proceedings under Section 9(A)(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The consequential order, passed under Rule 109(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, is the order referred to in paragraph no. 1 of the writ petition i.e. dated 21.05.2018.

4. A person coming to litigation before a superior Court, under a statutory provision, once challenges an order passed in the proceedings launched at the behest of a private person, obviously, has to make the said private person, in whose proceedings, the order has been passed, a necessary party as any order likely to be passed by the superior Court would be considering his/her rights or liabilities and has all probability of effecting him. Even when a person, or a counsel too, institutes proceedings and questions the order, the natural corollary, which follows is that he must have scrutinized the order; must have checked the legal and factual aspects; must have determined the grounds, on which he has to put the said order to challenge and must have scrutinized the array of parties of the order for the said purpose. Herein, the Revision was filed by Mr. Avtar Singh, but the petitioners have not impleaded Mr. Avtar Singh as a party respondent in the writ petition, in whose revision, the impugned order dated 23.08.2017 was passed.

5. After being made aware of the filing of the writ petition against the Revisional Order dated 23.08.2017, Mr. Avtar Singh has filed an Impleadment Application being Impleadment Application No. 9458 of 2018, for being impleaded as one of the party respondents in this writ petition. In paragraph no. 2 of the Impleadment Application, Mr. Avtar Singh has taken a specific pleading to the effect that he has been deliberatel