The main legal point established is that the impleadment of the State through the Collector satisfies the requirement of law in land disputes, and the ownership of Government land is State-centric, emphasizing the necessity of impleading the State in litigation involving Government property.

JUDGMENT :

1. Shri K. N. Gupta, learned senior counsel with Shri P. K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Shri R. S. Bansal, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

A short but interesting question involved herein which begs for an answer is as follows :

“Whether impleadment of the State through Collector of the concerned district satisfies the requirement of law of impleadment of necessary party or the particular department to which the land in question belongs is required to be impleaded to save the litigation from being sacrificed at the alter of non-impleadment of necessary party.”

2. This petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution assails the final order dated 3-3-2016 of Board of Revenue, Gwalior contained in Annexure P/1 allowing the revision of the State thereby setting aside the order of First and Second Appellate Authority i.e. SDO and Additional Commissioner, Gwalior respectively who had upheld the foundational order of Tehsildar dated 8-8-2013 allowing the application for mutation preferred by petitioners herein in respect of Survey No. 359 admeasuring 3 bigha and 9 biswa at village Veerpur, Tehsil and District, Gwalior.

3. It may not be out of place to mention here that application for mutation preferred by petitioners No. 1 and 2 herein initially suffered dismissal at the hands of Tehsildar, Gwalior by order dated 8-8-2013 on the ground that since the land belongs to irrigation department which was not impleaded in the earlier litigation i.e. civil litigation which ended in judgment and decree dated 15-9-2005 passed in S. A. No. 166/1999 by the High Court, the said decree is not binding on Tehsildar.

3.1 However the record indicates that on the very same day i.e. 8-8-2013 Tehsildar took a volte face.

4. It appears that due to directions passed in W. P. No. 6394/2010 on 6-2-2012 (vide P/3) and pending contempt petition bearing No. 1056/2012 before the High Court for non-compliance of order dated 6-2-2012, the Tehsildar reconsidered the prayer for mutation and allowed the application of petitioners No. 1 and 2 herein due to following compelling circumstances :

1. The judgment and decree dated 15-9-2005 passed in favour of petitioners herein in S. A. No. 166/1999 declaring petitioners to be a lease holder of the suit land bearing Survey No. 359 admeasuring 3 bigha and 9 biswa at village Veerpur, Tehsil and District Gwalior along with decree of injunction against the State restraining State from interfering with the possession of petitioners herein over the said suit land.

2. Order dated 6-2-2012 passed in W. P. No. 6394/2010 preferred by petitioners herein directing Naib Tehsildar/Tehsildar Lashkar, Gwalior to expeditiously decide the pending application of petitioners seeking mutation within three months.

3. Pendency of Conc. No. 1056/2012 in the High Court alleging noncompliance of order dated 6-2-2012 in W. P. No. 6394/2019.

4. Absence of material to show that the State has assailed the judgment and decree of High Court, Bench at Gwalior dated 15-9-2005 in S. A. No. 166/1999, in any higher or the same forum.

4.1 Petitioners No. 1 and 2 unsuccessfully assailed the rejection of their application for mutation before the SDO in first appeal. However, the second appeal preferred by petitioners No. 1 and 2 was allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior directing Tehsildar to enter the names of petitioners No. 1 and 2 herein in revenue record in terms of decree dated 15-9-2005 passed in S.A. No. 166/1999. The reason assigned by the second appellate authority for directing mutation in favour of petitioners No. 1 and 2 was that non-impleadment of irrigation department is inconsequential since the State was impleaded as party through Collector, Gwalior.

4.2 Aggrieved by the order of second appellate authority, the State represented through Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department preferred revision which has been allowed vide impugned order (