ORDER : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 08.11.2016 whereby the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC has been rejected. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that the father-in-law of the petitioner Mr. Pannalal surrendered total land of Khasara No.81 and some land of Khasra No.82 in village Hawala, District Rajsamand to the State Government for utilizing the same for public purpose i.e. constructing the public road. 3. The fact of surrendering the above piece of land is admitted in view of the order passed by Tehsildar Rajsamand on 30.06.2005/01.07.2005 and, therefore, the consequential mutation entries made in the revenue record. In the vicinity of the subject piece of land, house of the present petitioner is located and in front of the same the dwelling house of the respondent No.2 Ramesh Chandra is located. On the piece of land occupied by respondent No.2 certain constructions were already in existence prior to the surrendering the land in 2005 by the father-in-law of the petitioner. On a complaint being made by the petitioner with respect to certain encroachments being made by respondent No.2, the proceedings with respect to the removal of those alleged encroachments was undertaken by the Nagar Palika Rajsamand. 4. Aggrieved of those proceedings the respondent No.2 Ramesh Chandra preferred Civil Suit for perpetual injunction and the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajsamand after hearing parties on the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC passed an order dated 28.07.2012 by which the application for temporary injunction of Shri Ramesh Chandra was allowed. 5. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner preferred an application under Order 1, Rule 10 stating therein that she is necessary party in the matter as the land on which the encroachment exists was surrendered by her father-in-law in the year 2005 for the public purposes. Acting on the complaint filed by the petitioner, the State authority have undertaken the process of removal of the encroachment against Shri Ramesh Chandra. Therefore, to espouse the cause of public at large and for the better utilization of the land for the purpose of way to be used by the public at large, the petitioner is necessary party. Acting on the complaint filed by the petitioner, the State authority have undertaken the process of removal of the encroachment against Shri Ramesh Chandra. Therefore, to espouse the cause of public at large and for the better utilization of the land for the purpose of way to be used by the public at large, the petitioner is necessary party. It is further submitted that the personal rights of the petitioner with respect to the proper use of his house is also effected by the said encroachments made by the respondent No.2. 6. Opposing the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no cause of action against the petitioner which has been subject matter of the suit and further no relief is prayed against the petitioner in the suit. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that on the principle of dominous litis also the petitioner is not entitled to be arrayed as party respondent in the matter. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the judgment of this court reported in 2012 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1370; Kishan Sharma & Anr. v. Gram Panchayat, Niwaru & Ors. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the petitioner may agitate his personal grievances by filing a separate suit if he is aggrieved of any inconvenience or any inaction against the State authority including the respondent No.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 8. The fact of the matter that the father-in-law of the petitioner has surrendered the land to the State Government in the year 2005 is on record and after the surrender, it is the State Government who is the custodian of the land. True it is that on the complaint of the petitioner the machinery of the State Government has been put in motion for taking recourse for removal of the trespass or illegal encroachments on the Government land. Once the machinery of the State Government has been put in motion the job of the complainant is done and it cannot be presumed that the State Government will not take the appropriate action in the matter for removal of the encroachments from the respondent No.2. 9. Once the machinery of the State Government has been put in motion the job of the complainant is done and it cannot be presumed that the State Government will not take the appropriate action in the matter for removal of the encroachments from the respondent No.2. 9. I am of the view that once the land has been surrendered and the process for removal of the encroachment is undertaken by the authority of the State Government, the impleadment of the petitioner as respondent in the matter is necessary. Further there is no reason to disbelieve at this stage that the appropriate measure will not be taken by the State Government to remove encroachment from the public path. I am fully in agreement with the order passed by the learned Court below on 08.11.2016 which reads as under:- ^^mHk; i{k ds rdksZ dks lquk x;k rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA i=koyh ij miyC/k dfe'uj fjiksVZ fnuakfdr 16-10-2004 ds lkFk layXu uD'ks esa vkjkth la[;k 81 ds i'pkr~ 40 QhV dk jkLrk] mlds i'pkr~ izkFkhZ;k nhfidk ikyhoky dk edku fLFkr gSA izkFkhZx.k }kjk vius izkFkZuk i= esa ;g vafdr fd;k gs fd izkFkhZ la0 1 dk edku o mldh [kjhn'kqnk Hkwfe vkjkth la[;k 82@3 esa fLFkr gs rFkk jkLrs dh Hkwfe ij oknh }kjk dCtk fd;s tkus ls bl Hkwfe ds mi;ksx ls izkFkhZx.k oafpr gks tk;saxs] ijUrq iwoZ of.kZr dfe'uj fjiksVZ esa layXu uD'ks ds vuqlkj izkFkhZx.k dk edku vke jkLrs ds i'pkr gS rFkk izkFkhZx.k ;g Li"V ugha dj ik;s gSa fd oknh }kjk ;fn dksbZ voS/k fuekZ.k dk;Z mDr Hkwfe ij fd;k gS rks mlls izkFkhZx.k ds mi;ksx&miHkksx esa fdl izdkj ls ck/kk dkfjr gks jgh gS D;ksafd mDr uD'ks esa vkjkth la[;k 81 esa fVu'ksM+ o dPpk dejk fufeZr gS] rRi'pkr~ 40 QhV dk jkLrk vkSj mlds i'pkr~ izkFkhZx.k dk edku fLFkr gSA vr% pwafd izkFkhZx.k ;g Li"V ugha dj ik;s gSa fd os okn esa fdl izdkj ls vko';d i{kdkj gSa] vr% bl Lrj ij mUgsa i{kdkj cuk;s tkus dk dksbZ dkj.k izrhr ugha gksrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= varxZr vkns'k 1 fu;e 10 fl0iz0la0 [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA^^ Further as it has been held by this Court in the case of Kishan Sharma & Anr. (supra) in paragraph 8 which is as under: "8. (supra) in paragraph 8 which is as under: "8. It is settled proposition of law that the plaintiff is dominus litis and normally it is for him to select his adversory from whom he seeks relief and it was not for a Court to ask him to join any order person as party to the suit. It is not a province of a Court of law to interfere with that right. If plaintiff does not join the necessary or proper party, consequences will ensue and he will suffer. It is not a matter for the Court to worry about. Viewed from this angle, in the case of a permanent and mandatory injunction, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not found to be a necessary party or a proper party in the instant case, as the petitioners are found not to have sought any relief against them. Both the parties have been claiming possession over the disputed land and both the parties have filed separate suits relating to one subject matter. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are found to have filed a suit way back in the year 2004 and in that suit the plaintiff did not endeavour to implead the petitioners as a party defendant, whereas, in the instant case, when the suit is found to have been filed for permanent and mandatory injunction, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been allowed to be impleaded as a party, by the learned trial Court. The approach of the learned trial should be inconfromity with the provisions of law. The order is found to be arbitrary, capricious and the same being not found to be apt, deserves to be set aside." 10. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to chose against whom he wants to proceed in the matter. Hence in the present case petitioner is not and cannot be treated as a necessary party to the suit proceedings. 11. In view of whatever has been stated above, I do not find force in the petition. The same is, therefore, rejected.