A person claiming possession of land, not impleaded as a party by the Bhumiswami, is a necessary and proper party to the proceedings under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.

ORDER

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.09.2021 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Additional Collector, District Indore whereby the revision preferred by him under Section 50 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code, 1959') against the order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Khudel, District Indore has been dismissed by which his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for being impleaded as a party to the proceedings under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 initiated by respondent No.1 had been rejected.

2. The record shows that respondent No.1 has filed an application before the Tehsildar against respondent No.2 under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 for recovery of possession of the disputed lands. During course of proceedings the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for being impleaded as a party submitting that he is lawful owner of the disputed lands and is also in possession thereof hence is a necessary party to the proceedings. The application was rejected by the Tehsildar by observing that the petitioner has raised issue as regards title to the disputed lands which is beyond scope of proceedings and that he may raise his grievances as regards title before the competent Court. The said order has been maintained in revision preferred by petitioner by the Additional Collector by the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are apparently illegal and contrary to law. In the application for impleadment the petitioner had not only pleaded his title to the disputed lands but had also specifically averred as regards being in possession thereof. The said aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration at all. Since the proceedings are under Section 250 of the Code, 1959, the issue as regards possession is the primary issue which had been specifically raised by petitioner. It is further submitted that in case the proceedings are decided in absence of petitioner, his possession to the disputed lands shall be lost without him being heard in the matter.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that respondent No.2 is mother of the petitioner and both of them are living jointly and the application for impleadment was filed by the petitioner mischievously only for causing delay in the matter. On 04.04.2019 an application under Section 129 of the Code, 1959 was filed by respondent No.1 on which demarcation was carried out on 17.04.2019 pursuant to which application under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 was filed by respondent No.1. In those proceedings respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 129(4) which was rejected which order was eventually challenged before this Court in M.P. No.3350 of 2020 which was dismissed by order dated 10.12.2020 and just after two months therefrom the application under consideration has been filed. The petitioner cannot raise question as regards title in these proceedings for which he has remedy of approaching the competent Court. His application has hence rightly been rejected.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6. In his application under order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC filed by the petitioner, though he had claimed title to the disputed lands but had also made categoric statement that he is in possession thereof. For ready reference paragraph No.6 of the application is reproduced below:

7. From perusal of the aforesaid averment, it is clear that petitioner has not only claimed title to the disputed lands but has also contended himself to be in possession thereof. His application has been rejected by merely observing that he is raising a dispute as regards title to the disputed lands without considering the fact that he has also stated himself to be in its possessio