JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders of Tehsildar, sangod dated 3.12.1974 (annexure-4), Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota dated 6.2.1988 (anncxure-7) and Board of Revenue dated 28.12.1994 (annexure-8). 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner Panchayat Maliyan is said to be representative body of Malis village Dhikoli and the petitioner No.1 to 7 are its office bearers. On the recommendation of the Tehsildar, Sangod dated 30.7.1964, land measuring 100 x 100 sq. yard = 5 bigha 3 biswa out of Khasra No. 121 and 5 Biswa of land out of Khasra No. 120 in village Dhikoli was allotted to the petitioner for construction of Dharmshala. The Dharmshala was constructed and the petitioner Panchayat also dug a well on a part of Khasra No. 120 and the remaining land of Khasra No. 120 has been left open. On the basis of report of the Patwari, land measuring 160 sq. yards in Khasra No. 120 was regulaiized in accordance with circular dated 3.7.1971 by the Tehsildar vide its order dated 3.12.1974 in favour of non-petitioner No.5 on the alleged ground that he is possessing the said piece of land and one house is also there. When the matter was placed before the SDO, Ramganjmandi for attestation and verification on 18.6.1976, he made a spot enquiry and found that no house existed on Khasra No. 120, as such, he declined to covert the land of Khasra No. 120 from Charagah to Gairmumkin Abadi and also disapproved regularisation of the same vide order dated 3.12.1974. Against the order of Tehsildar dated 3.12.1974, the petitioner also filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Kota, which was accepted vide order dated 6.11.1982 and the aforesaid order passed by the Tehsildar was set side. Against the order dated 6.11.1982, non-petitioner No. 5 & 6 filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and it was stated before the Revenue Appellate Authority that a compromise has taken place between the parties. Otherwise also, the petitioner has no locus standi. The Revenue Appellate Authority restored the order of the Teshildar dated 3.12.1974 vide its order dated 6.2.1988. Otherwise also, the petitioner has no locus standi. The Revenue Appellate Authority restored the order of the Teshildar dated 3.12.1974 vide its order dated 6.2.1988. Against the order dated 6.2.1988, the present petitioner filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue and an objection was raised by the opposite party that revision petition is not maintainable as the State has not been impleaded as a party. Although, the application for impleadment was made, but still the Board of Revenue held that the petitioner was negligent in impleading the State as a party and dismissed the same on the ground of non-maintainability as well as on merits by observing that no error of jurisdiction has been pointed out. 3. Counsel for the respondents have stated in reply that the land has rightly been regularised in accordance with circular dated 3.7.1971. Since the land is a Government land, the Government has a right to regularise the same in accordance with the said circular. The petitioner has no locus standi to object the same and they have further compromised the matter before the Revenue Appellate Authority, therefore, they have no right to prosecute the matter further in a case where the dispute is between State and allottee and third party has no right to object the same. The petitioner has not impleaded the State as a party before the Board of Revenue, therefore, the Board of Revenue has rightly held that the revision is not maintainable. 4. Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the order of the Tehsildar is wholly without jurisdiction and the land being a Charagah land, the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the regularisation of the same. The State was impleaded as party-respondent by respondent No.5 & 6 in appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority. The finding of the Board of Revenue that the petitioner was negligent in not impleading State as party, is without any basis and once the application for impleadment of the State is made then in normal course, it ought to have been allowed. Otherwise also, at one place the Revenue Appellate Authority has based its judgment on the compromise and simultaneously, at other place has observed that the petitioner has no locus standi, which is self contradictory. 5. Otherwise also, at one place the Revenue Appellate Authority has based its judgment on the compromise and simultaneously, at other place has observed that the petitioner has no locus standi, which is self contradictory. 5. Counsel for the respondents have submitted that the State was a necessary party and the petitioner was negligent in not impieading the State as party, therefore, the Board of Revenue has not committed any error in rejecting their revision petition on merit also, the observation of the Board of Revenue is correct that the petitioner has not been able to point out any error of jurisdiction. 6. I have gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered rival submissions of the parties. 7. This Court in case of Hanuman & ors. v. Shakru & ors., AIR 1972 Raj. 176 has held that an application to implead the other party as respondent in appeal though made beyond the period of limitation, can be allowed. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submission and is the view that the application for impleadment of State as a necessary party was filed before the Board of Revenue at belated stage but still it would have been better to accept the same rather to reject the same and dismiss the case on the ground of nonmaintainability for the reason that State was impleaded first time by respondent before Revenue Appellate Authority and further a party is not to be penalised for such an omission where the Court is to do justice between the parties on merits, therefore, rejection of the application by the Board of Revenue is improper and the judgement of the Board of Revenue dated 28.12.1994 is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Apart from above, the Board of Revenue has not referred any submission of the parties on merit and simply said that there is no error of jurisdiction without referring to any error pointed out by counsel for the petitioner. On this count also, the judgment of the Board of Revenue is liable to be set aside, therefore, State is allowed to be impleaded as party respondent and the case deserves to be remanded back to the Board of Revenue for decision on merit and the parties are free to oppose or raise argument in support of judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority dated 6.2.1988. 9. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment of Board of Revenue dated 28.12.1994 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Board of Revenue to decide the same afresh in accordance with law on merit within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.Petition Allowed. *******