JUDGMENT : Abhilasha Kumari, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for opponents Nos. 1 and 2 (original petitioners), Mr. Vishrut Jani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for opponents Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. Kirit R. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for opponent No. 5. Opponent No. 6 (who is respondent No. 4 in the petition) has been served in the petition but none appears on his behalf, therefore, there is no requirement of issuance of notice of Rule to him in the present application. 2. This application has been preferred by the applicant with a prayer to join him as party respondent in Special Civil Application No. 8003 of 2016, preferred by present opponents Nos. 1 and 2. 3. It is the case of the applicant that he has made a complaint to the Taluka Development Officer (opponent No. 5) regarding the aspect that the original petitioners are running a Hospital by encroaching upon a portion of Gauchar land. That opponent No. 1 is not a bona fide purchaser as he has misguided the authorities and obtained permission. The Deputy Collector has granted a Certificate without properly verifying documents and has passed an order on 21.08.2009, permitting opponent No. 2 Trust to purchase the land, subject to certain conditions. 4. Mr. J.V. Vaghela, learned advocate for the applicant, has submitted that the applicant is an affected person and any order passed in the petition would affect his rights and cause him prejudice. Therefore, as the applicant is a necessary party, he may be joined as party respondent in the petition. 5. The application has been strongly opposed by Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned counsel for opponents Nos. 1 and 2 (original petitioners), by submitting that the applicant is neither a proper nor a necessary or affected party. The application is an outcome of political rivalry as the applicant has lost the Taluka Panchayat election against a relative of opponent No. 1. It is submitted that the applicant may have made a complaint to opponent No. 5, but that does not confer locus standi upon him to file the present application. The application is an outcome of political rivalry as the applicant has lost the Taluka Panchayat election against a relative of opponent No. 1. It is submitted that the applicant may have made a complaint to opponent No. 5, but that does not confer locus standi upon him to file the present application. That, the applicant has not placed any material on record to show how he is an affected party or that he is even a proper or necessary party. Hence, as the applicant has no locus standi in the matter, the application may be rejected. 6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the application and other documents on record. 7. Opponents Nos. 1 and 2, the original petitioners, have filed the petition, inter alia, praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to decide the allotment of land, as described therein, to petitioner No. 2 Trust for social, educational and medical purposes. Notice has been issued in the petition on 12.05.2016 and directions have been issued to the authorities not to take coercive steps against the original petitioners. 8. In the above context, there is nothing in the present application that even remotely indicates how, and in what manner, the present applicant is either involved in the issue raised by the petitioners or, more appropriately, how he is affected by it. The applicant has stated that he has made a complaint to opponent No. 5 regarding the alleged encroachment by the original petitioners. If the applicant is of the view that any wrong-doing has occurred, then he has fulfilled his role by approaching the concerned authorities and bringing the alleged wrong-doing to their notice. How a complaint made by him can give him locus standi to file the present application for joining the petition, or make him a proper or necessary party, has neither been explained, nor clarified by the applicant. Besides, there is not a shred of evidence to show how the applicant would be adversely affected by any order passed in the petition. 9. It is not the case of the applicant that he is, in any manner concerned with the land in question or that he is interested in it. Besides, there is not a shred of evidence to show how the applicant would be adversely affected by any order passed in the petition. 9. It is not the case of the applicant that he is, in any manner concerned with the land in question or that he is interested in it. Though a fleeting reference has been made that the decision in the petition would affect the applicant, however, it appears to have been made only as an empty formality without any substance. Admittedly, the applicant has nothing to do with the land that is the subject-matter of the petition. As such, this Court cannot accept the submission advanced by learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant is a necessary party who would be affected by the outcome of the petition. 10. Clearly, the applicant is not a proper or necessary party within the meaning of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the broad and analogous principles of which would be applicable to writ proceedings. Had any material been brought to the notice of the Court indicating that the presence of the applicant would be necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the issues involved in the petition, the Court would have had no objection to joining the applicant as party respondent. Had the applicant been successful in showing how the final outcome of the petition could adversely or prejudicially affect him, then also, the Court could have considered the prayer made in the application. These legal requirements are wrongfully lacking in the application. 11. In view of the above discussion and as the Court is of the view that the applicant is not a proper, the following order is passed: The application is rejected. Rule is discharged. Application Dismissed