ORDER : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15277/2023: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (South), Udaipur City, Udaipur, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners-applicants under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been rejected. 3. Briefly noted the facts of the case are that the petitioners are having a land measuring 0.1900 hectare in village Badgaon. The said land was surrendered to Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur for the purpose of issuing residential lease deeds (patta). The patta was issued by the UIT, Udaipur, the plots were sanctioned and the petitioners constructed their houses therein. Simultaneously, the UIT also sanctioned a road of 30 feet width for which 15 ft. of land was surrendered by the petitioners. The sanctioned road was allegedly encroached by the private respondents and, therefore, the UIT issued them the notice under Section 92-A of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1959’) for removing the said encroachment. The respondents filed their reply to the show cause notice and ultimately those proceedings were decided by the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur vide its order dated 16.05.2023. The private respondents were ordered to remove their encroachments from the road as mentioned above. Against the order dated 16.05.2023, the private respondents filed a suit before Civil Judge (South), Udaipur. In the pending suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading them as party respondents, however, the said application was rejected vide order dated 12.09.2023. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the land which was surrendered by the petitioners to the UIT for the construction of the road has been allegedly encroached by the private respondents and, therefore, the official respondents i.e. UIT has appropriately initiated the proceedings against the private respondents for removal of encroachment. He further submits that the respondent UIT, after having undertaken the process as enshrined under the Act of 1959, has rightly come to the conclusion that the private respondents have encroached upon the land and thus the same is required to be removed. 5. He further submits that the respondent UIT, after having undertaken the process as enshrined under the Act of 1959, has rightly come to the conclusion that the private respondents have encroached upon the land and thus the same is required to be removed. 5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that against the order so passed by the UIT on 16.05.2023, the private respondents preferred a suit in which the petitioners have filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC but the same has wrongly been rejected by learned trial Court. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the action for removal of the ecroachments made by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had been initiated by taking recourse to Section 92-A of the Act of 1959 by the UIT on the lands surrendered by the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners are having direct civil and evil consequences of any decision of the civil suit and if they are not heard in the matter by impleading them as party respondents before learned trial Court, their rights will be adversely effected. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order dated 12.09.2023 may be quashed and set aside and the application so preferred by the petitioners for impleading them as party respondents under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC may be allowed. 6. The contentions so raised by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners are supported by Shri Purohit who is appearing for the respondent UIT. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel and submits that the petitioners are the only complainants in the matter and, therefore, they have no right to be impleaded as party respondents before learned trial Court. He further submits that the petitioners have also preferred a separate suit for redressal of their grievances on the same grounds which are being raised in the application for impleading as party respondents before learned trial Court as they were granted liberty by learned trial Court while rejecting their application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. He further submits that the petitioners have also preferred a separate suit for redressal of their grievances on the same grounds which are being raised in the application for impleading as party respondents before learned trial Court as they were granted liberty by learned trial Court while rejecting their application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the private respondent Nos.1 and 2 has relied upon the judgments delivered in Kishan Sharma and Another vs. Gram Panchayat, Niwaru, 2012 (3) Civ CC 670, Hari Singh and Another vs. Raju Singh and Others, 2014 (26) RCR (Civ) 345, Sudhamayee Pattnaik and Others vs. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and Others, 2022 (0) AIR (SC) 4304 and Tikam Singh vs. Ramesh 2017 (3) Civ CC 831. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case including the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by learned trial Court. 9. As per the factual averments made by learned Senior Counsel, it is clear that the land which belonged to the petitioners was surrendered by them to the UIT as per the provisions of Rules in vogue at the relevant time and the recourse has also been taken by the UIT, whereby 30 feet width road has been provided which includes 15 feet width road from the lands surrendered by the petitioners. The competent authorities of the respondent UIT after having undertaken the exercise as per Section 92-A of the Act of 1959 have held that the private respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are encroachers and, therefore, the encroachment was ordered to be removed vide order dated 16.05.2023. The private respondents have assailed the validity of the order dated 16.05.2023 by way of filing a civil suit in which an application has been preferred by the petitioners for being impleaded therein as party respondents. 1 and 2 are encroachers and, therefore, the encroachment was ordered to be removed vide order dated 16.05.2023. The private respondents have assailed the validity of the order dated 16.05.2023 by way of filing a civil suit in which an application has been preferred by the petitioners for being impleaded therein as party respondents. Since the part of land on which the road is being constructed belongs to the petitioners and the same has been surrendered by them, therefore, if any order is passed by learned trial Court against the order passed by the UIT on 16.05.2023, the same will have a bearing on the petitioners and their rights will be affected and thus in the humble opinion of this Court, the petitioners are necessary party to the suit proceedings undertaken by the private respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Even otherwise, this Court is also of the opinion that by impleading the petitioners as party respondents in the suit proceedings, no rights of the private respondents will be prejudicially effected. 10. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the private respondents do not have any bearing and they are clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The order dated 12.09.2023 passed by learned trial Court is quashed and set aside and the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be arrayed as party respondents in the suit proceedings initiated by the private respondents. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15268/2023: 12. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of even date passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15277/2023 (Sukh Ram Didel and Others vs. Narpat Singh and Others). 13. In view of the above, the present writ petition is also allowed in the same terms as in the case of Sukh Ram Didel (supra).