ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Since both the above writ petitions arise out of a common order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, therefore, they are being heard and decided by this common order. 3. The present writ petitions have been filed against the order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby, the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC was rejected. 4. Briefly, the necessary facts required to be noted in the present cases are that on a complaint made by petitioner-Balbir Singh and other persons, the Revenue Authorities of the Department had undertaken the proceedings against Hukam Singh being the trespasser on the Government land. In the said proceedings undertaken by the Colonisation, Tehsildar Mohangarh No. 1, Hukam Singh was declared as trespasser vide order dated 17.06.2014. Against the order dated 17.06.2014 passed by Colonisation, Tehsildar Mohangarh No. 1, Hukam Singh preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner Colonization-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaisalmer, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 17.11.2015. Against the order dated 17.11.2015, Hukam Singh preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the same is pending consideration till date. 5. Petitioner-Balbir Singh and other persons preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC for impleadment in the proceedings pending before the Additional Commissioner Colonization-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaisalmer but the same was rejected vide order dated 08.10.2015. The petitioner-Balbir Singh and other persons thereafter did not challenge the rejection of the application so preferred by them. Thereafter, the Additional Commissioner Colonization-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaisalmer rejected the appeal of Hukam Singh on merits vide order dated 17.11.2015. Against the order dated 17.11.2015, Hukam Singh preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue and in the pending appeal of Hukam Singh, the petitioner-Balbir Singh and other persons preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC for their impleadment as party respondents. Against the order dated 17.11.2015, Hukam Singh preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue and in the pending appeal of Hukam Singh, the petitioner-Balbir Singh and other persons preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC for their impleadment as party respondents. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 12.09.2018 although rejected the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC on the ground that since the petitioners’ application for impleadment was rejected by the First Appellate Authority on 08.10.2015 and the same was not challenged, therefore, no liberty can be granted to the petitioner Balbir Singh and other persons to be impleaded as party respondents in the present second appeal. However, learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer allowed the petitioner Balbir and other persons as interveners in the case. 6. Mr. G.R. Punia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Balbir Singh and other persons submits that petitioners are necessary party in the case as on their own complaint, the entire action has been undertaken by the official respondents for removing Hukam Singh and others from the Government land being trespassers. He further submits that the petitioner-Balbir Singh and other persons are necessary party in the matter, therefore, the learned Board of Revenue was incorrect in rejecting their application preferred under Order 1 Rule 10. He, therefore, prays that the writ petitions may be allowed and the petitioners may be impleaded as party respondent before the Board of Revenue. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the application so preferred by the petitioners was already rejected by the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 08.10.2015 and since that order was not challenged, therefore, the right to get the petitioners impleaded in the present proceedings is already waived off by them. He further submits that the learned Board of Revenue rightly rejected the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 but wrongly allowed the petitioner Balbir and Ors. to appear themselves as interveners. He further submits that by the presence of the petitioners before the Board of Revenue, they will create complications in the matter. He, therefore, prays that order to the extent the petitioners were impleaded as interveners vide order dated 12.09.2018 may be quashed and set aside. 8. to appear themselves as interveners. He further submits that by the presence of the petitioners before the Board of Revenue, they will create complications in the matter. He, therefore, prays that order to the extent the petitioners were impleaded as interveners vide order dated 12.09.2018 may be quashed and set aside. 8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the entire record of the case including the order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the Learned Board of Revenue. 9. The facts narrated in the preceding paras have not been disputed by the counsel for the parties. The entire action for declaring the respondent Hukam Singh as trespasser is initiated on the complaint made by the petitioner-Balbir Singh and other persons and on the basis of the said complaint Additional Commissioner Colonization-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaisalmer passed the order dated 17.06.2014 declaring Hukam Singh as trespasser. Since the petitioners are complainants only and their right to impleadment had already been rejected by the First Appellate Court vide order dated 08.10.2015 and the same was not challenged before the Board of Revenue, therefore, learned Board of Revenue was correct in rejecting the application so preferred by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The Board of Revenue also considered the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8-A of the CPC and had rightly came to the conclusion that the presence of the petitioners can throw some light on the question pending before the Board of Revenue and, therefore, if they are allowed as interveners, the interest of justice will be met. The finding arrived at by the learned Board of Revenue, in the opinion of this Court, appears to be just and proper and in the interest of justice. 10. Further, Hukam Singh will be free to agitate all his defence against the interveners including the orders passed by this Court in the Public Interest Litigation preferred before this Court. 11. With these observations, the present writ petitions are disposed of and the order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the learned Board of Revenue is affirmed.