JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This petition is directed against order dated 23.8.2012, passed by the Civil Judge, Taranagar, whereby an application preferred by the applicants Mahadeo Prasad and Immichand for impleading them as party defendant in the suit, has been allowed. 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the State of Rajasthan through the District Collector, Churu and Tehsildar, Taranagar, aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by Tehsildar, Taranagar, under Section 22 of Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1964, vide notice dated 17.7.2003, directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment over the pasture land. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Churu, vide judgment and decree dated 14.7.2005. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal preferred by the State was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the trial court for decision afresh, after giving an opportunity to the State to lead evidence. 3. After the remand, during the pendency of the suit, the respondent no. 4 & 5 herein, preferred an application for impleading them as party defendant in the suit. Precisely, the case of the applicants was that the defendant State had neither filed the written statement nor led evidence and therefore, the suit was earlier decreed in favour of the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner has encroached upon the pasture land and therefore, the interest of the villagers is bound to be directly affected by decision of the suit and therefore, the applicants deserve to be impleaded as party. 4. The application has been allowed by the Court below observing that since, the defendants neither filed the written statement nor led evidence, while remanding the matter, the Appellate Court has found the role of the officer-in-charge to be suspicious and therefore, taking into consideration, the circumstances of the case, the applicants deserve to be impleaded as party defendant in the suit inasmuch as, the land is alleged to be pasture land and therefore, by decision thereof, the rights of the villagers shall be directly affected. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the State Government is the custodian of the pasture land and is in position to protect the land owned by it and therefore, the question of impleading the applicants as party defendant in the suit, does not arise. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the State Government is the custodian of the pasture land and is in position to protect the land owned by it and therefore, the question of impleading the applicants as party defendant in the suit, does not arise. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner's grievance is against the proceeding initiated by Tehsildar under Section 22 of the Act and therefore, the applicants have no right to interfere in the suit proceedings involving dispute between the petitioner and the State. Learned counsel submitted that the applicants being neither necessary nor proper party, the question of impleading them as party defendant in the suit, does not arise and therefore, the order impugned passed by the Court below, is ex facie erroneous and deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents no. 4 & 5 submitted that taking into consideration the conduct of the State authorities in not defending the matter effectively, the order impugned passed by the Court below in larger public interest, does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submitted that obviously, if the suit preferred by the plaintiff is decreed, the right of the villagers to use the pasture land, is bound to be adversely affected and therefore, the applicants were rightly treated to be proper party in the matter. 7. Mr. O.P. Boob, Government Counsel, submitted that the Government shall defend the suit with due diligence and certainly is in position to protect the public land. However, learned Government Counsel submitted that the State have no objection if the applicants are impleaded as party defendants in the suit. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 9. Indisputably, the suit has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the Tehsildar, Taranagar, in initiating proceedings under Section 22 of the Act, for the removal of the encroachment on the land, alleged to be pasture land. It is true that during the earlier proceedings in the suit, the State authority did not defended the matter effectively and therefore, in absence of any evidence on behalf of the defendants, the suit preferred by the plaintiff was decreed. It is true that during the earlier proceedings in the suit, the State authority did not defended the matter effectively and therefore, in absence of any evidence on behalf of the defendants, the suit preferred by the plaintiff was decreed. But then, the fact remains that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court stands set aside by the Appellate Court on appeal being preferred by the State and now, after the remand, the matter is being defended by the State. It is not even the case of the applicants that after the remand, the matter is not being defended by the State. Be that as it may, essentially, the lis involved in the suit is with regard to the land belonging to the State, which is claimed to be pasture land and therefore, the applicants who have no direct interest in the lis between the parties, cannot be permitted to inter meddle in the matter. In the considered opinion of this Court, the State is in position to effectively defend the suit and therefore, there is no reason why the applicants should be permitted to be impleaded as party defendants in the suit, ignoring the settled law that the plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be compelled to contest against the persons, he does not wish to contest. 10. In view of the discussion above, this Court is of the opinion that order impugned passed by the Court below impleading the respondent no. 4 & 5 as party defendants in the suit, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. In the result, the petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 23.8.12 passed by the Civil Judge, Taranagar, in Civil Suit No. 31/03, is set aside. No order as to costs.