[2025:RJ-JD:52360]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13169/2015

Smt. Saroj Devi Agarwal W/o Shri Prahlad Roy Agarwal, aged 56

years, R/o 2/229, Bhadada Mohalla, Bhilwara, (Raj.)

----Petitioner/Applicant

Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the District Collector, Bhilwara,

Raj.

2. Gram Panchayat, Aatun, through its Sarpanch, Gram

Panchayat Aatun, Tehsil & District Bhilwara, Raj.

3. Roopa S/o Bheru Balai, R/o Gathila Kheda, Panchayat Aatun,

Panchayat Aatun, Tehsil & District Bhilwara, Raj.

4. Rajendra S/o Shri Nand Lal ji Jat, R/o Gathila Kheda, Panchayat Aatun, Panchayat Aatun, Tehsil & District Bhilwara,

Raj.

5. Shankar Lal S/o Shri Daya Ram Ji Jat, R/o Gathika Kheda, Panchayat Aatun, Panchayat Aatun, Tehsil & District Bhilwara,

Raj.

Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar

Ms. Vidika Singhvi

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nilesh Choudhary for

Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav, Dy.G.C. for R/1

& 2

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

04/12/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a challenge to the order dated 19.10.2015 passed by the District Collector, Bhilwara, whereby the application filed by the present petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment in the

Revision Petition No.35/2015 was dismissed.

2. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties.

3. No one puts in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 4

and 5 who have filed the revision petition before the Court below.

4. Considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and

2.

5. As per the facts on record, the alleged Patta in favour of respondent No.3 - Roopa was issued by the Gram Panchayat Aatun, Panchayat Samiti Suhana, District Bhilwara on

27.03.1999.

6. The revision petition has been filed in the year 2015 on 03.09.2015 alleging that the Patta in favour of Roopa has been issued by the Gram Panchayat without following due process of law as given in the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996.

7. It has been brought on record that after allotment of the Patta in favour of respondent No.3- Roopa, the same was registered on 04.01.2005 and thereafter the registered Patta holder sold it to Mr. Balmukund on 30.06.2006 and thereafter, Balmukund also sold the land in question to one Mr. Satishchandra and he sold it to Smt. Saroj Devi (who is the present petitioner) vide registered sale deed dated 11.04.2011.

8. As per the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, a necessary or proper party or any affected party or any party whose presence is necessary for adjudication of the suit brought before the Court could be impleaded as a party to the proceedings by the Court concerned.

9. In the present case, the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the land in question by a registered sale deed dated 11.04.2011 that is much prior to the filing of the revision petition. Since the present petitioner is holding the land in question by purchasing the land in question by a registered sale deed, she would in fact be an affected party by any order passed by the court in the revision petition and therefore, in that situation, she being an affected party should have been allowed to be impleaded as a party respondent.

10. Taking into consideration the material facts on record, and so also the provisions of law and also gone through the impugned order dated 19.10.2015 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was rejected, this Court finds that the revisional court has not given any reasoning for dismissal of the impleadment application whereas it is a settled principle of law that while passing any order on an application that must be a reasoned and speaking so that one could know why his application has been dismissed or allowed and the aggrieved party may avail the remedy available to him under the law by raising material grounds and to say that how the reasons given by the Court below ar