ORDER : SUDESH BANSAL, J. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9017/2023 1. Matter has come up on an application(1/2023) filed by one Mr. Ranjeet Singh Meena S/o Shri Netaram under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, seeking his impleadment as party respondent in the instant writ petition. 2. The application has been replied by the petitioners and has been opposed by them. 3. Heard counsel for petitioners and counsel for applicant on the application. 4. Indisputably, applicant has already filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5098/2023 for grant of compensation of the acquired lands in question, in form of 25% developed land instead of awarding monetary compensation. It is admitted case of applicant that the acquired lands for which petitioners are claiming compensation of 25% developed land in the present writ petition are also subject matter in his S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5098/2023. The applicant intended to question the right of petitioners to get compensation of the acquired land, fundamentally, on the ground that the acquired lands belonged to Bhonrya and his son Tara @ Taru has gone in adoption to one Shri Girdhari Lal and name of Tara @ Taru was wrongly entered in the revenue record. Therefore, the petitioners, who are grandsons of Tara @ Taru, are not entitled to claim compensation of the acquired lands. 5. Per contra, petitioners in the reply to the application, have categorically denied the adoption of Tara @ Taru and have contended that their grandfather Tara @ Taru, got the Khatedari rights in the acquired land under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 and not through succession to late Sh. Bhonrya. It has been contended by the petitioners that the applicant is son of Netaram and is neither necessary nor proper party in the present writ petition, moreso when the applicant himself has filed his independent and separate writ petition for claiming the compensation in respect of the lands-in-question herein, thus, application is liable to be dismissed. 6. Bhonrya. It has been contended by the petitioners that the applicant is son of Netaram and is neither necessary nor proper party in the present writ petition, moreso when the applicant himself has filed his independent and separate writ petition for claiming the compensation in respect of the lands-in-question herein, thus, application is liable to be dismissed. 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that when the applicant himself has filed an independent and separate S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5098/2023 and the Khasra numbers of acquired lands for which petitioners are claiming compensation by way of 25% developed land in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9017/2023, are also included in the subject lands for which applicant is claiming compensation by way of 25% developed land in his S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5098/2023 and the writ petition filed by the applicant is tagged with the present writ petition, therefore, it is not necessary to allow impleadment of applicant in the present S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9017/2023, however, it is hereby observed that since both writ petitions are tagged, hence, same shall be heard and decided together. Thus, the contentions of the applicant, may be considered by the Court while deciding the present S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9017/2023 along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5098/2023 and no prejudice would be caused to the applicant due to declining his impleadment in the present writ petition. 7. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, prayer of applicant to implead him as respondent in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9017/2023 is rejected, however, it is hereby observed that S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9017/2023 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5098/2023 shall be heard and decided together. 8. Accordingly, application(1/2025) stands disposed of. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5098/2023 9. In view of order dated 27.01.2025, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9017/2023, the prayer of counsel for petitioner to de-tag the present writ petition is hereby rejected.