Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) Present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.9.2014 passed by the Prescribed Authority Moradabad in P.A. Case No. 17 of 2007.
(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's father Sri Jagdish Prasad Gupta was the owner of the property in question which is subject matter of P.A. Case No. 17 of 2007. It is next contended that after the death of the petitioner's father, petitioner along with her two brother being respondent Nos. 1 and 2 became joint owners of the property in question. It is next contended that the respondent No. 1 and 2 filed Original Suit No. 469 of 2006 and obtained a collusive decree, decreeing their exclusive ownership of the property in question along with other properties behind the back of the petitioner in order to preclude her from getting her rightful claim as legal heir of her father. Constrained the petitioner filed Original Suit No. 603 of 2012 challenging the collusive decree and exclusive ownership of the property in question by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 which suit is stated to be pending. It is argued that in the meantime respondent No. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 against the tenants i.e. respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Respondent No. 3 and 4 assailed the title and ownership of the respondent No. 1 and 2. It is further argued that the petitioner also filed an application for impleadment in P.A. Case No. 17 of 2007 being application No. 78-C under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC and Rule 22(f) of the Rules of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for being impleaded as party in order to show her rightful claim as co-owner of the property in question so that the property in question may not be released exclusively in favour of respondent No. 1 and 2. It is contended that the aforesaid application of the petitioner was rejected by the Prescribed Authority Moradabad vide order dated 22.9.2014 on the ground that the question of title cannot be entered into in the proceedings and the matter with regard to landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 and 4 will be seen at the time of final decision of the case.;