1. Challenging rejection of impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in proceedings for grant of way under Section 251-A, Rajasthan Tenancy Act. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 547
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANJEET PUROHIT, J.
Arjun Ram S/o Shri Heera Ram – Appellant
Versus
Lichhman Ram S/o Shri Ramkaran – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 18888, 18952 of 2022
Decided On : 13-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Saroj Patel, Nandipna Gehlot
For the Respondent: Sweta Purohit
For the Appellants : Saroj Patel, Nandipna Gehlot
For the Respondent: Sweta Purohit
Under Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, 'necessity' means 'absolute necessity.' Authorities must evaluate all feasible alternative routes; owners of land where such alternatives exist are necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, regardless of whether the applicant requested a path through them.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - Section 251-A - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10(2) - Grant of new way - Absolute necessity vs. convenience - Impleadment of necessary parties - Expression “necessity” under Section 251-A(1)(b)(i) must be construed as “absolute necessity” and not mere convenience or preference (Paras 6, 6.1). The competent authority is required to undertake a comprehensive and comparative evaluation of all feasible alternative routes before arriving at a conclusion; it is immaterial whether the applicant has specifically sought a way through a particular plot of land or not (Para 6.2).
(B) Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Necessary and proper party - A necessary party is one without whom no effective order can be passed (Para 7.1). Where an inspection report indicates the possibility of an alternative route through a specific plot of land, the owner of said land is a necessary party for complete adjudication, and failure to implead them would render the decision-making process incomplete (Para 7).
(C) Revenue Records - Since Section 251-A contemplates the creation of a new way where necessity demands, the fact that no path is pre-existing or reflected in revenue records cannot be a valid ground to reject an application for impleadment or to avoid ascertaining the possibility of an alternative way (Para 8).
Facts of the case:
An application under Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was filed seeking a new way through a specific plot of land. After a remand from the higher revenue authority with directions to ensure the land was not divided and to explore alternative paths, the petitioner sought to implead the owner of an adjacent plot under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, asserting that an alternative way existed along that land. The Sub-Divisional Officer and the Board of Revenue rejected the impleadment application on the grounds that no way had been sought through that specific plot and no such way was recorded in the revenue records.
Findings of Court:
The court found the reasons for rejecting the impleadment application to be perverse and erroneous. The site inspection report indicated the possibility of an alternative route along the plot in question. Furthermore, to satisfy the requirement of "absolute necessity" under Section 251-A, a comprehensive evaluation of all alternatives is mandatory, regardless of the applicant's preference.
Issues: Whether the owner of a plot of land through which an alternative access route may pass is a necessary party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, even if the applicant has not specifically sought a way through that plot.
Ratio Decidendi: To determine if there is an "absolute necessity" for a new way under Section 251-A, the authority must consider all feasible alternatives. If a plot of land is identified (e.g., via inspection report) as a potential alternative, its owner is a necessary party because an effective and comprehensive adjudication cannot be made without their presence.
Result: Writ petitions allowed; orders dated 30.03.2021 and 20.09.2022 quashed and set aside; application for impleadment allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued impleadment necessary for complete adjudication; respondents contended no way sought through that land and application was delaying tactic. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Reasons for rejecting impleadment were perverse; authority must consider all alternate routes; absence of existing path not determinative. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Under Section 251-A, khatedars of lands through which alternate ways may be determined are necessary parties for comprehensive adjudication. (Para 7 , 9 )
5. Writ petitions allowed; impugned orders quashed; impleadment application allowed; proceedings to be expedited within three months. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
6. What is the test for determining a necessary party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in proceedings for grant of way?
A party is necessary if their presence is essential for an effective and complete adjudication; the inconvenience of the applicant is not the sole criterion. (Para 7 )
7. How is 'necessity' under Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act construed?
The term 'necessity' under Section 251-A(1)(b)(i) must be construed as 'absolute necessity' and not mere convenience or preference of a party. (Para 6 )
8. Is it necessary to implead khatedars of lands through which an alternate route may be determined under Section 251-A?
Yes, khatedars of lands through which alternative access routes may be determined are necessary parties for a comprehensive adjudication. (Para 7 , 9 )
9. Can the absence of a pre-existing path in revenue records be a valid ground to reject an impleadment application?
No, the absence of a pre-existing path in revenue records is not a valid ground to reject an impleadment application under Section 251-A. (Para 8 )
ORDER :
1. Present writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders dated 30.03.2021 (Annex.10) whereby petitioners’ application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC for impleading khatedar of khasra no. 161 as a party was rejected by learned Sub-Divisional Officer (“SDO”), Makrana, Nagaur so also order dated 20.09.2022 (Annex.12) passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer (“BOR”) rejecting revision petitioner of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, petitioners in both the petitions are party to same proceedings and have challenged same orders by these two petitions. For the sake of convenience, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18952/2022 are taken into consideration for deciding both the writ petitions.
2. While elucidating the factual matrix of the present case, learned counsel for petitioner stated that an application under Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“Act of 1955”) was preferred by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 seeking grant of a new way through khatedari land of petitioners i.e. Khasra No. 162. Learned SDO, vide order dated 08.10.2013, allowed said application and granted new way to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 from khasra No. 162, which resulted in dividing land of Khasra No. 162 into two parts.
2.1 Petitioners preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority (“RAA”), Nagaur, wherein learned RAA vide order dated 21.12.2016 by setting aside order dated 08.10.2013, remanded the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Officer.
2.2 Challenging the said order, respondents preferred revision petition. Learned BOR, vide order dated 19.07.2017 (Annex. 6), affirmed the order dated 21.12.2016 and issued specific directions that while deciding the application filed under Section 251-A of the LR Act, efforts should be made to ensure that the land of Khasra No. 162 is not divided into two parts, the path should be useful for all neighbouring landholders, and that a new path should be approved only in the event of non-availability of any alternative path.
2.3 In the proceedings, after remand, petitioner filed an application seeking to implead khatedar of Khasra No. 161 as party respondent, stating therein that for the purpose of ascertaining availability of the alternate way, which is available alongwith Khasra No. 161, presence of khatedar tenant of Khasra No. 161 is necessary. However, said application was rejected by the learned SDO vide order dated 30.03.2021 (Annex. 10), on the ground that applicant had not sought a way through Khasra No. 161 nor any way from Khasra No. 161 is recorded in the revenue record. It is further observed that as per the site inspection report dated 12.03.2021 (Annex.7), shortest and nearest way does not pass through Khasra No. 161, thus, khatedar tenant of khasra No. 161 is not necessary party. On such grounds, the application for impleadment was rejected.
2.4 Challenging the same, petitioners preferred revision petition and learned BOR, vide order dated 20.09.2022 (Annex. 12), dismissed revision petition on the ground that since applicant had not sought any way through khasra No. 161, khatedar tenant of Khasra No. 161 cannot be impleaded as party in the pending proceedings.
2.5 Challenging said orders dated 30.03.2021 and 20.09.2022, present writ petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as a matter of fact, learned BOR vide order dated 21.12.2016 has issued specific directions to ascertain availability of alternate way so as to ensure that land of Khasra No. 162 shall not be divided in two parts. It is further stated that since an alternate way is available, which is running alongwith land of Khasra No. 161, thus presence of khatedar tenant of Khasra No. 161 is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of dispute.
3.1 It is contended that adjudication under Order I Rule 10 CPC is not confined merely to the question as to whether the applicant has a direct interest in the suit property, but also extends to examining whether the rights of a person are likely to be a
