[2025:RJ-JD:50948]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9259/2023 Smt. Hansa Devi W/o Shri Ramesh Chand Patel, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Patel, Resident Of Nathelao Colony, Banswara (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus

1. The Director, Local Self Govt. Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The Municipal Council, Banswara (Rajasthan).

3. Shri Narendra Jain S/o Shri Inder Mal Jain, Resident Of Gali No. 28, Bahubali Colony, Banswara (Rajasthan).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Shrimali Mr. Rishabh Shrimali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Thanvi Mr. Mahendra Thanvi Ms. Riya Goswami for Mr. Pankaj Mehta.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

Conclusion of Arguments &

Reserved on : 19/11/2025 Pronounced on : 02/12/2025

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the Director, Local Bodies, whereby the application filed by the private respondent for seeking impleadment as party respondent was allowed in the pending appeal filed by the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the writ petition submitted that a patta was issued in favour of the present petitioner by the respondent No.2 – Municipal Council on

19.03.2021. Based on a complaint, the respondent – Municipal Council issued a notice to the petitioner on 24.05.2022, followed by another notice dated 22.11.2022 and proceeded to cancel the patta issued in favour of the petitioner while exercising the power under Section 73-B of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (‘the Act of 2009’) vide order dated 06.01.2023.

2.1 Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.01.2023 passed by the Municipal Council, Banswara, an appeal was preferred before the Director, Local Bodies under Section 73-B(4) of the Act of 2009. It is submitted that the complainant, on whose complaint the Municipal Council, Banswara proceeded to cancel the patta, moved an application seeking impleadment as party respondent in the pending appeal before the Director, Local Bodies. The Director, Local Bodies has wrongly impleaded the private respondent as party respondent, as the appeal was filed precisely on the ground that the Director, Local Bodies, without following the procedure as provided under the provisions of Section 73-B of the Act of 2009, proceeded to cancel the patta. It is submitted that for the purpose of deciding this issue, the presence of private respondent is not at all required and therefore, the private respondent is neither necessary nor a proper party in the pending appeal.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submitted that the respondent No.3 is directly concerned with the outcome of the appeal. It is submitted that the respondent is having title based on registered patta (lease deed) over the disputed plot and if the appeal is allowed and patta is restored, then his rights would be adversely affected. It is further submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the private respondent is heard by the Director, Local Bodes while deciding the appeal.

3.1 In support of such contentions, the respondent has placed reliance on judgments passed in case of Pruthvirajsinh Nodhubha Jadeja (D) By LRs vs. Jayeshkumar Chhakaddas Shah & Ors., reported in (2019) 9 SCC 533; Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd. vs. Aftab Ahmed, reported in (2020) 4 CivCC 427; and Smt. Darshna vs. Government of NCT of Delhi &

Ors., reported in 2019(2) CivCC 173 (Delhi).

3.2 While referring to the judgments aforesaid, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent No.3 is necessary party as an effective order in his absence could not be passed and therefore, the order passed by the Director, Local Bodies is required to be affirmed and the present writ petition is required to be dismissed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. The issue which is required to be first considered as