Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Amar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:9583) on 23 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:9583]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18291/2025
1. Amar Singh S/o Jor Singh, Aged About 52 Years, Bagji Ka
Par, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur.
2. Padam Singh S/o Jor Singh, Aged About 51 Years, Bagji
Ka Par, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur.
3. Vijay Singh S/o Jor Singh, Aged About 48 Years, Bagji Ka
Par, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur.
4. Gopi Devi W/o Vijay Singh, Aged About 46 Years, Bagji Ka
Par, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Baap, Dist. Falodi.
2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Baap, Dist. Falodi.
3. Mehraj Singh S/o Jaswant Singh, Bagji Ka Par (Jemla),
Tehsil Baap, District Falodi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash
Mr. Sunil Nain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Judgment
23/02/2026
1. Present writ petition is filed challenging order dated
07.11.2022 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Bap, District
Phalodi whereby application preferred by respondent No.3 under
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment was allowed. Order dated
13.01.2025 dismissing the review petition is also challenged in the
present case.
2. Explaining the background facts, counsel for petitioners
stated that a revenue suit No.169/2019 was filed by petitioners
before the Court of Assistant Collector cum Sub Divisional Officer,
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 07:29:08 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/02/2026 at 08:35:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9583] (2 of 4) [CW-18291/2025]
Bap under Section 88 read with Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land
Revenue Act, 1956. It is stated in the plaint that although the
petitioner is recorded as the khatedar of Khasra No. 150 to the
extent of 209.06 bighas, he is in actual possession of the entire
land comprised in Khasra No. 150, measuring 376.05 bighas.
Accordingly, the petitioner has sought a decree declaring him as
the recorded khatedar of Khasra No. 150 to the full extent of
376.05 bighas, including the additional land situated on the
eastern side of his presently recorded holding.
3. In the said suit, an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC
was filed by respondent No. 3 stating therein that he has
khatedari rights over land bearing Khasra No. 151/1 measuring
109.10 bigha and is also in possession of additional land situated
on the eastern side of the plaintiff’s land. It was further mentioned
in the application that the plaintiff has claimed rights over the said
portion of land which is in possession of the applicant; hence, he
is a necessary party to the said suit.
4. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, learned Court of
Assistant Collector, Bap, District Phalodi allowed application of
respondent No.3 and impleaded him as party respondent vide
order dated 07.11.2022. The said order was challenged by way of
filing a review petition and the same was rejected vide order
dated 13.01.2025.
5. Challenging both the said orders dated 07.11.2022 and
13.01.2025, present writ petition is filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit has
been instituted against the State authorities, and the relief sought
is also against them. Therefore, since no relief has been claimed
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 07:29:08 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/02/2026 at 08:35:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9583] (3 of 4) [CW-18291/2025]
against respondent No. 3, he is neither a necessary nor a proper
party to the suit proceedings.
7. He further stated that impleadment of respondent No.3 as
party-respondent would expand the scope of suit and thus, orders
impugned are not sustainable in the eye of law. Invoking the
theory of dominus litis, counsel for the petitioner stated that
plaintiff petitioner cannot be compelled to contest the case against
third person who is stranger to the suit proceedings.
8. Heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the material
available on record.
9. This Court finds that petitioner is a recorded Khatedar of
Khasra No.150 measuring 209.06 bigha and has prayed for a
decree of declaration regarding his khatedari rights to the
additional land of the same Khasra measuring 376.10 bigha. The
claim declaring for additional land is based upon factual averments
of plaintiff’s possession over the said additional land situated at
the east side of plaintiff’s land. The Court of Assistant Collector
has recorded a clear finding that respondent No.3 is also recorded
khatedar of adjacent Khasra i.e. Khasra No.151/1 and he also
claimed his possession over the same additional land claiming
himself to be in possession. In such circumstances, the learned
court below has declared respondent No.3 as a necessary and
proper party to the said proceedings.
10. This Court finds that said discretionary power has been
exercised by learned Assistant Collector, Bap, District Phalodi
judiciously and while recording a specific finding, the same does
not call for interference by this Court.
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 07:29:08 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/02/2026 at 08:35:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9583] (4 of 4) [CW-18291/2025]
11. This Court also finds that both the parties have claimed their
rights for the same piece of land based on their long-standing
possession and therefore, said issue is required to be decided in
presence of both the parties in order to avoid the complexity and
multiplicity of proceedings. No perversity, illegality, jurisdictional
error or any error apparent on the face of record is found in the
order impugned which may warrant interference by this Court.
12. So far as order dated 13.01.2025 is concerned, same has
been passed while rejecting the review petition of the petitioner.
Learned Court below while referring to provision of Section 229 of
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and order 47 Rule 1 CPC has clearly
observed that petitioner has failed to establish any error factual or
legal in the order dated 07.11.2022 and since scope of
interference of Court in its review jurisdiction is very limited, the
review petition was rightly rejected by leraned authority below.
This Court finds no error in the said order dated 13.01.2025.
13. As an upshot of the above discussion, the present writ
petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
14. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
46-praveen/-
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 07:29:08 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/02/2026 at 08:35:37 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
