Banwari Lal Sharma, J. - (1.) THE matter came up on the application filed by the applicant -Aishwarya College Education Sansthan under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with order 1 Rule 10 CPC for its impleadment as party respondent. The brief facts of the case are that writ petitioners Ram Narain Dhabhai and Chain Shankar Dhabhai filed the writ petition on 07.10.2014 under Sec. (Art.) 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondent No. 1. The State of Rajasthan, 2. The Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur, 3. The Special Officer -Land Acquisition Officer UIT, Udaipur and 4. The District Collector, Udaipur and prayed for following relief: - - "(1) The land acquisition proceedings with regard to the land in question initiated in the year 1990 may kindly be declare to have been lapsed by virtue of Section 24 (2) of the LA Act of 2013; (2) The petitioners may kindly be declared to be true and absolute owner of the land in question by virtue of the fact that the land acquisition proceeding already been lapsed; (3) The respondent UIT, Udaipur may kindly be restrained from disturbing the physical possession of the petitioners from the land in question; (4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioners, may kindly be granted and (5) The cost of the writ petition be allowed in favour of the petitioners."
(2.) THE applicant Aishwariya Education Sansthan filed an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 1, Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 stating therein that the applicant has been allotted 20,000 sq. meters land out of Khasara No. 4298, 4299 to 4303, 4342 to 4358 and 4383 of village Bhuwana, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur which is also subject matter of the present writ petition. Thus, in the present petition, if any order is made in favour of the petitioner, the same will adversely affect the rights of the applicants and the applicant is necessary party to this writ petition. Lastly prayed that this application may be allowed and applicant may be impleaded as party respondent in the writ petition. In reply filed by the writ petitioners it was stated that writ petitioners preferred the writ petition praying for a declaration to be made under Sec. 24 of the Land Acquisition Act of 2013 for declaring land acquisition proceedings to be lapsed on the ground that in case of the petitioners, neither the physical possession over the land in question was taken nor the amount of compensation has been paid to the petitioners till date. It was further averred in reply that both the pre -conditions of Sec. 24 of the LA Act of 2013 were satisfied, therefore, declaration was prayed for getting the land acquisition proceedings lapsed under the said provision. It was also averred that controversy involved in the writ petition can very well be decided in presence of the petitioners as well as respondents parties itself and no other third party is necessary or proper party to the litigations. Lastly it was prayed that the application filed by the applicant may be dismissed.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties arid perused the material available on record.;