SHIVRAJ SINGH Vs. BHARAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 09.08.2012 passed in Civil Suit No. 9A/12, whereby the petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w section 151 C.P.C. (Annexure P/4) is rejected.

(2.) PLAINTIFF / respondent No.1 instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to agriculture land, survey No. 292, area 1.294 Hectare in Patwari Halka No. 24, Tehsil and District Vidisha. Petitioner and other villagers preferred a complaint before Tahsildar contending that the land in question is a "Charnoi" land and mentioned as a Government land in the revenue records. Tahsildar passed an order dated 17.06.2011 on the said complaint dated 07.09.2010. The plaintiff / respondent was directed to be evicted from the said land. Reliance is also placed on Khasra entries (page 22) to demonstrate that it is a "Charnoi" land. Against the said order of Tahsildar, the plaintiff / respondent filed an appeal under section 44 of M.P. Land Revenue Code before the Sub -Divisional Officer (SDO). The said appeal dated 11.08.2011 is pending before the appellate authority. By placing reliance on appeal memo, it is contended that the plaintiff / respondent has impleaded the present petitioner as defendant in the appeal. Thus, this land being Charnoi and Govt land is used by the petitioner and other villagers, they have a grievance against the plaintiff's suit, wherein he prayed for declaration and permanent injunction on the Government land. The Court below has rejected it on the ground that merely because the petitioner was party in revenue proceedings, he will not become a necessary party in the suit.

(3.) PER Contra, Shri A.K. Nirankari, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported the order impugned and submits that petitioner is not a necessary party. He submits that plaintiff is dominus litis and cannot be compelled to implead anybody as a party respondent.