JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. P. Tomcha, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. A. Golly, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant society to implead them as party respondent in the writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant society submitted that the applicant is a society registered under the Manipur Societies Registration Act, 1989 and that the Government of Manipur declared the site of Wangkhei Dolai Thaba Chingu Khubam measuring an extent of 1031 square meter as protected historical monument in public interest under Section 4(3) of the Manipur Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1976. While so, the writ petitioner is trying to usurp the land of Wangkhei Dolai Thaba Chingu Khubam. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant society has also approached the Director of Arts and Culture, Government of Manipur to take necessary action to issue Jamabandi of the protected site in the name of Wangkhei Dolai Thaba Chingu Khubam and the same was forwarded by the Director to the third respondent to initiate necessary process. 5. The learned counsel urged that the writ petitioner filed the writ petition for quashing of the notification of eviction proceeding initiated by the second respondent and the applicant society has also submitted their statement in Eviction Case No.2 of 2020 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Porompat. He also urged that the members of the applicant society are all devotees of Wangkhei Dolai Thaba Chingu Khubam and are all followers of the indigenous religion of Sanamahi. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant society next submitted that the applicant society is necessary party to the writ petition and in their absence, any order passed in the writ petition, will not only cause great prejudice, but also their sacred place will be lost forever. Thus, a prayer is made to implead the applicant society as party respondent in the writ petition. 7. Per contra, Mr. A. Golly, the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the applicant society was recently created one, whereas Wangkhei Dolai Thaba Chingu Khubam was declared as protected historical monument way back one and half decades ago. Thus, the applicant society is no way connected with the historical monument. 7. Per contra, Mr. A. Golly, the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the applicant society was recently created one, whereas Wangkhei Dolai Thaba Chingu Khubam was declared as protected historical monument way back one and half decades ago. Thus, the applicant society is no way connected with the historical monument. In fact, the third respondent in the writ petition alone is the competent authority to represent the protected historical monument. In view of the above, the applicant society is neither a necessary party nor a proper party. Accordingly, a prayer is made to dismiss the application. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 9. The grievance of the applicant society is that by the order of declaration dated 5.9.2005, the Government of Manipur declared the site of Wangkhei Dolai Thaba Chingu Khubam as protected historical monument and by another order for demarcation dated 18.4.2006, site measuring 1031 square meter was demarcated. Further grievance of the applicant is that since the writ petitioner is trying to usurp the land of Wangkhei Dolai Thaba Chingu Khubam and filed the writ petition, the applicant society is necessary party to be impleaded to contest the writ petition. 10. On the other hand, it is the say of the writ petitioner that before passing the order for declaration dated 5.9.2005 and the order for demarcation dated 18.4.2006, no notice was issued by the State Authority as mandated under the Act of 1976 and the Rules framed thereunder. Accordingly, both the orders are not tenable and sustainable in the eye of law. 11. As far as the question for declaration of the site Wangkhei Dolai Thaba Chingu Khubam and demarcation of 1031 square meter are concerned, the same cannot be decided in this application and that too in the writ petition. Therefore, the legality of the issuance of the orders dated 5.9.2005 and 18.4.2006 cannot be gone into. However, in the counter filed to the instant application, the writ petitioner stated that he is going to file an appropriate case for quashing and setting aside those two orders in due course, as the passing of both orders came to his knowledge only through the instant application. In view of the above, this Court has not delved into the merits of the passing of the orders dated 5.9.2005 and 18.4.2006 respectively in this order. 12. In view of the above, this Court has not delved into the merits of the passing of the orders dated 5.9.2005 and 18.4.2006 respectively in this order. 12. Coming to the application for impleadment, it is stated by the applicant society that since the applicant society filed an application for issuance of Jamabandi patta and trace map of the area 1031 square meter in the name of Wangkhei Dolai Thaba Chingu Khubam and in view of the resolution passed by the Managing Committee dated 4.12.2021 resolving to file necessary application to implead Wangkhei Dolai Thaba Chingu Khubam, through its Vice President, it is necessary to implead the applicant society as party respondent in the writ petition. 13. The writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned eviction order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East and to direct the respondents therein to consider and dispose of the representation dated 14.1.2019 of the petitioner considering that the writ petitioner or her family is indubitably landless. 14. According to the writ petitioner, she is one of the daughters and legal heir of the her father Ahanthem Mukta Singh and during his life time, her father was in possession and enjoyment of Government land measuring an area of 20 x 40 feet in northern portion from the Government lands in C.S. Dag No.1277 measuring 11 acre and Dag No.1278 measuring 0.12 acre at 27-Wangkhei East, Imphal East. The revenue records in respect of 0.12 acre in C.S. Dag No.1278 stood in the name of the petitioner's father. However, on the basis of the letter dated 26.6.2012 of the third respondent to the second respondent requesting to initiate eviction proceeding against the petitioner for encroaching upon the historical site of Wangkhei Dolai Theban Chingu Khubam and constructing one shed, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Porompat issued notice dated 15.12.2012 to the petitioner calling to show cause why eviction proceedings should not be initiated against the petitioner for the unauthorized occupancy of the Government Khas Land of 20 x 40 square feet or encroaching historical site under the Manipur Public premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1978. Considering the explanation given by the petitioner, the eviction proceedings was closed by the concerned authority. 15. Considering the explanation given by the petitioner, the eviction proceedings was closed by the concerned authority. 15. According to the petitioner on 14.1.2019, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the second respondent under Section 14 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 read with the Allotment Rules, 1962 to allot the aforesaid land under C.S. Dag No.1277 and C.S. Dag No.1278 for residential purpose. Though the said representation was received by the second respondent, no order has yet been passed. While so, the respondent authorities again initiated another Eviction Case No.2 of 2020 against the petitioner and her two tenants and the petitioner has also submitted explanation on 11.6.2020 and, accordingly, the third respondent stopped further proceeding of the eviction case. According to the petitioner, after the expiry of about 3 years from the date of making representation, on 15.10.2021 an eviction order dated 11.10.2021 was passed by the second respondent behind the back and without notice to the petitioner thereby directing the petitioner and others to remove the structure and construction made and deliver vacant possession within 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the fourth respondent will take necessary steps for eviction. 16. The genuineness and the correctness of the impugned eviction order dated 11.10.2021 and the representation of the petitioner dated 14.1.2019 cannot be gone into in this application. That apart, the petitioner is claiming right over the property stating that the revenue records pertaining to the area of 0.12 acre in C.S. Dag No.1278 stood in her name and, therefore, the third respondent has no authority to request the second respondent to issue an eviction order. The aforesaid cannot also be decided in the instant application. 17. The point that arises for consideration is whether the applicant society is required to be impleaded in the writ petition, as party respondent. 18. The applicant society states that they are necessary parties in the writ petition, as they applied Jamabandi patta to an extent of 1031 square meter in C.S. Dag Nos.1277, 1278, 1282 and 1283 in the name of Wangkhei Dolai Theban Chingu Khubam. 19. 'A necessary party' is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective order could be passed at all by the Court. 19. 'A necessary party' is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective order could be passed at all by the Court. A 'proper party' is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the Court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. 20. It is settled that the scope and ambit of Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC regarding adding or striking out of parties. The said sub-rule is not about the right of a non-party to be impleaded as a party, but about the judicial discretion of the Court to strike out or add parties at any stage of a proceeding. In the case on hand, looking to the averments set out and the issue involved in the writ petition, the impleading of the applicant society is not required. 21. According to the writ petitioner, she is in possession of the Government land measuring an area of 20 x 40 feet in northern portion from Government Khas lands under C.S. Dag No.1277 - 0.11 acre and Dag C.S.No.1278 - 0.12 acre. In the form of application for allotment dated 14.1.2019, the petitioner has stated the aforesaid extent and C.S. Dag Nos. and requested the second respondent to allot the said land for residential purpose. It is stated that even after expiry of three years from the date of making such application, the concerned authority has not considered the application of the petitioner. However, an eviction order dated 11.10.2021 was issued by the second respondent to deliver vacant possession. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the writ petition. As stated supra, for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the applicant society is no way related and therefore, the applicant society is not a necessary party to the relief claimed in the writ petition. 22. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the writ petition. As stated supra, for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the applicant society is no way related and therefore, the applicant society is not a necessary party to the relief claimed in the writ petition. 22. In Kasturi v. Uyyamperumal and others, (2005) 6 SCC 733 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court provided two tests that are to be satisfied for determining the question that who amounts to a necessary party: (i) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings. (ii) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such a party. 23. In view of the above, the applicant society is not a necessary party to the challenge made in the writ petition. Therefore, there is no necessity to implead the applicant society as party respondent in the writ petition and the application is liable to be dismissed. 24. Accordingly, M.C.(WP) No.19 of 2022 is dismissed.