Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 878 (RAJ)

Ladu Singh v. The Board of Revenue

1995-09-19

B.R.ARORA, D.C.DALELA

body1995
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.9.85, passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant challenging the order of the Board of Revenue dated 20.2.85, was dismissed. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy it is necessary to state, in brief, the events which culminated in the litigation between the parties. With respect to 39 Bighas 7 Biswas of land of Khasra No. 35 situated in village Basni Kavian wherein a litigation started between Badridan and Karni Dan. On 1.10.68 both these persons compromised the matter and filed the compromise-deed in the Court. In pursuance to this compromise, the suit was decided on 5.11.78 in favour of Karni Dan and he was declared as the Khatedar of this land. Karni Dan, after the decision of the suit in his favour with respect to this land, sold half of the land for public purposes, i.e., for digging a well. The Government sanctioned some grant for digging the well and the well is already in existence. On 30.11.68, the Tehsildar, Raipur, ordered that the mutation of half of the land, i.e., 19 Bighas 1 Biswa, may be made in favour of Karni Dan and 19 Bighas 1 Biswa of the land may he mutated in fa sour of the public of village Basni Kavian. In pursuance to this order of the Tehsildar the Patwari of the area entered the mutation in favour of the public of Basni Kavian and the Grain Panchayat, Rampur Kallan, approved this mutation in its Meeting held on 4.2.69. An appeal against this order was filed which was allowed and the case was remanded to the Gram Panchayat for reconsideration. The Gram Panchayat, in its meeting dated 30.4.72, ordered that the mutation of 19 Bighas 1 Biswa of the land may be made in favour of the public of Village Basni Kaviyan and that of 19 Bighas I Biswa in favour of Karni Dan. Dissatisfied with the order dated 30.4.72 passed by the Gram Panchayat ordering the mutation of the land in the name of the public of Basni Kavian and Karni Dan, Badri Dan, claiming himself to be the Khatedar of this land, filed an appeal before the Collector, Pali, which was transferred to the Court of the Assistant Collector, Jaitaran, for adjudication. Dissatisfied with the order dated 30.4.72 passed by the Gram Panchayat ordering the mutation of the land in the name of the public of Basni Kavian and Karni Dan, Badri Dan, claiming himself to be the Khatedar of this land, filed an appeal before the Collector, Pali, which was transferred to the Court of the Assistant Collector, Jaitaran, for adjudication. In the appeal, the villagers of Basni Kavian were made the party represented by Karni Dan. The villagers, on 9.10.73, objected for their representation by Karni Dan and moved an application that the interest of whole of the invillagers in the appeal will not he properly looked after by Karni Dan and, therefore, instead of Karni Dan, Narain Singh, Pratap Singh, Chainpuri and Idan may be permitted to defend the appeal on behalf of the villagers of Basni Kavian. As the interest of all the villagers is involved in the land. The Assistant Collector, Jaitaran allowed this application and permitted Narain Singh, Pratap Singh, Chainpuri and Iedan to defend the case of the villagers in the representatives capacity: Badri Dan, aggrieved of the order impleading Narain Singh and others as the party- respondents, filed the appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur, which was dismissed on 22.12.75. The impleading of Narain Singh and others as the party was given publicity in the area. The appeal filed by Badri Dan was ultimately dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Jaitaran, by his judgment dated 25.6.77 and the order dated 30.4.72, passed by the Gram Panchayat, Rampur Kallan, entering the mutation in favour of the public of Basni Kavian and Karni Dan of 38 Bighas 7 Biswas of land, was maintained. Aggrieved with the order dated 25.6.77 passed by the Assistant Collector, Jaitaran, dismissing the appeal filed by Badri Dan, Badri Dan preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur. In the appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, an objection was taken by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Karni Dan that Narain Singh, Pratap Singh, Chain Puri and ledan, who were the necessary party in the appeal, have not been impleaded as party-respondents and the appeal cannot be disposed of in their absence as their rights have been substantially affect and as such the appeal filed by Badri Dan may he dismissed. The Revenue Appellate Authority, by his order dated 25.11.78 over-ruled the objection raised by Karni Dan and held that Narain Singh, Pratap Singh, Chain Puri and ledan are not the necessary party to the appeal as they represent the interest of all the villagers. Aggrieved with the order dated 25.11.78, the legal representatives of Karni Dan preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, and the Board of Revenue, by its judgment dated 20.2.85, allowed the revision petition filed by Karni Dan, set aside the order dated 25.11.78 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and directed the Revenue Appellate Authority to decide the appeal after impleading and hearing Narain Singh, Pratap Singh, Chain Puri and Iedan as party- respondents as they were the necessary party to the appeal. Aggrieved with this order dated 20.2.85, passed by the Board of Revenue, the appellant preferred a writ petition before this Court which was dismissed by the learned Single judge vide judgment dated 6.9.85. It is against this judgment that the appellant has preferred this special appeal. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Narain Singh, Pratap Singh, Chain Puri and ledan were the necessary party as has been held by the Board of Revenue, also, and no application for impleading them as party-respondent was made by Badri Dan either before the Revenue Appellate Authority or before the Board of Revenue and, therefore, the appeal, filed by Badri Dan should have been dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of party, as the effect of non-joinder of the necessary party renders the appeal incompetent. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance over Udit Narain Singh Malpahari v. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bilrar and Ors, AIR 1963 SC 786 , Kanakarathananunal v. V.G. Logantha Mudaliar and Ann, AIR 1965 SC 271 , Ch. Surat Singh and Ors. v. Manohar Lal and Ors., AIR 1971 SC 240 and Vishnu Mahadeo Pendse v. The Rajen Textiles Mills (P) Ltd. and Ann, AIR 1975 SC 2079 . Surat Singh and Ors. v. Manohar Lal and Ors., AIR 1971 SC 240 and Vishnu Mahadeo Pendse v. The Rajen Textiles Mills (P) Ltd. and Ann, AIR 1975 SC 2079 . The learned Additional Government Advocates, on the other hand, have supported the judgment passed by the Court below and further submitted that "under O.1 rule 10(2) CPC the Court is competent, upon or without any application filed by the party, on such terms as may appear to be just, to order that the name of any person who ought to have been joined whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the revision petition, be added as a party and if in pursuance to Sub-rule (2) of rule of order 1 CPC the order has been passed then that does not require any interference". Learned Additional Government Advocates have, also, placed reliance over Legal Representatives of Smt. Sodi Devi v. Legal Representatives of Hajari Mal, 1994 (1) WLC (Raj.) 397 and Dhanna v. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and Ors., 1977 RLW 322. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. There is no dispute so far as the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments relied-upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, is concerned that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of impleading the necessary party to the appeal as the effect of non-joinder of the necessary party renders the appeal incompetent to be maintained. But these judgments, relied-upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable in the present case. In the present case, the Gram Panchayat, by its order dated 30.4.72 entered the mutation in the names of Karni Dan and the public of village Basni Kavian. The appeal cannot be dismissed because so far as the consideration of the appeal on merit regarding mutation of the land made in favour of Karni Dan is concerned, that has to be adjudicated upon by the Court, even if the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is admitted. The appeal cannot be dismissed because so far as the consideration of the appeal on merit regarding mutation of the land made in favour of Karni Dan is concerned, that has to be adjudicated upon by the Court, even if the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is admitted. The interest of all the villagers were involved in the present proceedings and Narain Singh, Pratap Singh, Chain Puri and Idan were representing public of village Basni Kavian. They were appearing in the representative capacity. Their non-inclusion in the appeal by names as the party-respondents is not fatal as the public of village Basni Kavian has been impleaded as party respondent No. 4 and the appeal cannot become incompetent on this ground. Though Narain Singh and others were allowed to represent the villagers of Basni Kavian and they were included as party to the proceedings but in the order of the Assistant Collector, Jaitaran, their names have not been included and the name of public of Basni Kavian represented through Karni Dan as the respondent No. 4 has been shown. It is on this account that the error might have crept-in in the Memo of AppealEven otherwise, under O. 1 r. 10(2) CPC, the Court has power to order for addition of the parties-whether as a plaintiff or the defendant whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the proceedings either upon an application or even without any application by the party, on such terms and conditions which the Court deems just and proper. This power can be exercised in the revision by the Board of Revenue suo ntoto without any application by any party, also, and if the Board of Revenue passed an order for impleading Narain Singh, Pratap Singh, Chain Puri and Idan, who were representing the public of village Basni Kavian as respondents treating them as necessary party to the proceedings, no illegality appears to have been committed by the Board of Revenue. It is not their individual interest which was involved in the case but it was the interest of the public of the village with respect to the land where the well was dug and constructed by public money. It is not their individual interest which was involved in the case but it was the interest of the public of the village with respect to the land where the well was dug and constructed by public money. They have been ordered to be impleaded as party-respondent to safe-guard the interest of public of village Basni Kavian. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner and the order, passed by the learned Single Judge, does not require any interference. 6. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******