Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2334 (RAJ)

Anand Singh v. Board of Revenue

2008-10-14

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2008
Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.4.2005 whereby the Board of Revenue has set aside the order dated 15.4.2000 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. Vide order dated 15.4.2000, the Revenue Appellate Authority had allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as party. 2. The brief facts of the case are that certain lands bearing Khasra Nos. 513, 514, 515, 516, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 491/548, 445/550, 447/552, 310/581, 448/586, 311, 312, 464, 465, 466, 467, 484, 485, 488, 489, 496, 497, 498, 499, 503, 504, 505, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 328, 329, 330, 331, 337, 338, 347, 348, 350, 351, 355, 356, 380, 381, 383, 384, 225, 309, 194, 294, 292, 189, 178, 218, 215, 216, 229, 224, 226, 236, 287, 389, 290, 291, 295, 296, 297, 392, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324 and 326 belonged to Thakur Mangal Singh. By way of a Will dated 13.3.1971, the said land was given to the petitioner's wife. These lands were in on the khatedari of Joint Agricultural Farm Co-operative Society and the petitioner was the President/Chairman of the said society. The respondent Nos. 4 to 19 filed a suit for declaration and correction in the revenue record before the Court of Addl. Collector, Sikar in 1995. However, on 22.5.1997, the said suit was dismissed. According to the Addl. Collector, the plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence to prove their case. According to the Addl. Collector, the land belonged to the society. Against said order, the plaintiffs respondents submitted an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. However, according to the petitioner, instead of impleading him as respondent, the society was arrayed as a respondent through the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as a necessary and proper party in the appeal. Vide order dated 15.4.2000, the Revenue Appellate Authority accepted the application for impleadment of the petitioner as a party respondent. Since the respondents were aggrieved by the said order, they filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. The learned Board of Revenue accepted the revision petition, quashed and set aside the order dated 15.4.2000. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Since the respondents were aggrieved by the said order, they filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. The learned Board of Revenue accepted the revision petition, quashed and set aside the order dated 15.4.2000. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Anoop Dhand, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the land belonged to petitioner's father-in-law and since he was the Chairman of the society, it is his interest which is at stake. Therefore, he should be permitted to be impleaded as party. According to the learned counsel, only the petitioner can bring correct facts to the notice of the Court. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the society has gone in liquidation and its interests vest with the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies and the said society is represented through Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society, Sikar. According to learned counsel, the petitioner is no longer the Chairman/President of the Society. Therefore, he does not have any interest which can adversely be affected by the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority passed in the appeal. Thus, the Board of Revenue has correctly passed the impugned order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. Bare perusal of the order dated 15.4.2000 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority reveals that it has not given any cogent reasons for allowing the application u/O. 1 R. 10 of C.P.C. Meanwhile, the Board of Revenue has clearly opined that the petitioner is neither recorded as khatedar nor has he given valid reasons for being impleaded as necessary party in the case. Moreover, according to this Court, interest of the society would be dfended by the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society. Therefore, the petitioner is neither necessary, nor a proper party to he appeal. Hence, impugned order is neither perverse nor suffers from any illegality. Under the facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the petitioner which is hereby dismissed.