- (1.) THE petitioner Puneet Kumar Sood has filed writ petition before Single Bench in which he has prayed for quashment of various orders in the matter of mutation passed by the Board of Revenue, Gram Panchayat, Tehsildar, etc. Following prayers have been made :- "(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature thereof it be declared that after the passing of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1989 the judgments of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer dated 8.3.1988 (Ann.10) and 4.9.2000 (Ann.11) have become non est and ineffective and the order dated 23.1.1977 passed by the Gram Panchayat Chitwadi, has been restored and revived and the judgments of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer dated 8.3.1988 (Annexure-10) and 4.9.2000 (Annexure-11) may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature thereof the order dated 24.5.2005 (Ann.13) passed by Tehsildar, Chomu with regard to Mutation No.379 may kindly be ordered to be quashed; (iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature thereof the order dated 26.5.2005 passed by Tehsildar, Chomu on Mutation No.282 of village Morija, Tehsil Chomu may kindly be ordered to be quashed. (iv) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature thereof the Application dated 16.5.2005 submitted by Tehsildar, Chomu in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Chomu for holding proceedings under Section 30-E of Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 and the proceedings being held by the Sub Divisional Officer, Chomu on the basis of the same may kindly be ordered to be quashed; (v) Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deem just, appropriate and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (vi) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner. "
(2.) THE basic dispute, as admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, is with respect to the mutation. In the petition preferred by Puneet Kumar Sood, Smt. Lad Kanwar and Smt. Pyare Kanwar filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for their impleadment as respondents claiming themselves to be daughters of Ganga Singh. The applicants prayed in the application for their impleadment on the basis that the property in question with regard to which ceiling proceedings were initiated, is the property of a Joint Hindu Family and they are also co-sharers having undivided share but mutation entry was never opened in their name and when ceiling proceedings were initiated, no opportunity was afforded to them and present applicants have filed suit for partition for the self same subject property impleading present respondents as party defendants, which is pending adjudication before the trial court. If any order is passed in favour of the petitioner in the instant case, who is also claiming his right on the basis of purchase made by him by the sale-deed, their rights may be jeopardized. The application was objected to by the respondents in the petition as well as by the petitioner on the ground that the property was never the property belonging to Joint Hindu Family as claimed by the applicants. They were never impleaded as party in the proceedings initiated under ceiling law, when the matter proceeded upto the Board of Revenue or in the mutation proceedings. The Single Bench has allowed the application on the ground that though applicants are not ordinarily to be impleaded as party but this fact cannot be ruled out that subject property in question, as alleged by the applicants, was Joint Hindu Family and they are claiming themselves to be co-sharers and by the rights decided in the present proceedings, prejudice may be caused to them. As such, their impleadment has been allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the intra court appeal has been preferred. Shri Pareek, learned Senior Counsel, appearing with Shri N.C. Sharma and Shri M.C. Jain, on behalf of the appellants has submitted that as the applicants were not party upto the Board of Revenue in the proceedings with respect to which relief has been claimed relating to mutation and ceiling and civil suit is already pending and in mutation proceedings right, title or interest is not finally determined, they are fiscal in nature particularly in view of the pendency of civil suit in which declaration is sought with respect to property being joint family property and that the applicants are co-sharers, it was not appropriate to permit the impleadment in the writ court for the first time when the proceedings have already culminated in the hierarchy of the revenue courts upto the Board of Revenue. The applicants cannot enlarge the scope of the writ application as the petition arises out of the orders passed by concerned revenue courts. Petitioner as well as the respondents in the writ application, have opposed the prayer for impleadment as such the impleadment could not have been allowed.
(3.) SHRI Mehrishi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner Puneet Kumar Sood, has submitted that impleadment could not have been allowed considering the prayer made in the petition as the applicants were not parties upto the Board of Revenue and in the proceedings of which orders were questioned. Thus for the first time they could not have been added as parties in the writ application. Shri Kumawat, appearing on behalf of the applicants, who applied for their impleadment, has submitted that impugned order is appropriate. Sajara khandan has been placed on record indicating that they are members of the Hindu Undivided Family and the property was belonging to Hindu Undivided Family, thus no interference is called for in the intra court appeal. It was also submitted that as petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India an order has been passed allowing the impleadment as such no intra court appeal is maintainable against the order. He has placed reliance on Abhishek Mundra v. Navratan Mal Jain and others, 2011 WLC (Raj.) UC 163. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, as the petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for various reliefs, for quashment of the orders passed by the concerned revenue courts / Board of Revenue etc. and admittedly the applicants were not parties in those proceedings, the impleadment could not have been allowed at the writ stage as impleadment is not going to serve any purpose whatsoever, as facts and right claimed cannot be adjudicated for the first time raised in the applications preferred in the writ proceedings. Whether they are members of the joint family and have inherited the property, with respect of these reliefs civil suit has been filed and is stated to be pending consideration before the trial court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, for the first time the impleadment could not have been allowed at the writ stage as the scope of the proceedings before the revenue court could not have been enlarged, that too in a writ petition. No factual investigation could have been made in the writ petition. Thus it was not appropriate to allow the impleadment. ;