JETPUR NAGARPALIKA Vs. GOBAR KARSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged by this writ petition, the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Camp at Rajkot dated 18-9-1984 allowing the application filed by the respondent No. 5 to join him as a party to the revision application of the appeal of the respondents No. 1 to 3.

(2.) The facts, in brief, of the case are that the respondent No. 4, City Survey Officer, Jetpur, under its order dated 11-9-1970 held the petitioner to be the lessee of the land in Jetpur city, Survey Tikka No. 61, Chalta No. 2. The said land was given on lease to the Jetpur Municipality as it comes out from the order of the City Survey Officer, Jetpur for Compost Khatar. The period of lease was of ten years. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the City Survey Officer, the respondents No. 1 to 3 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Gondal being Appeal No. 24 of 1980. This appeal was partly allowed by the appellate authority vide order dated 11-9-1970 and the matter was remanded to the Mamlatdar for inquiry under Sec. 37{2) of the Bombay Iand Revenue Code. The respondents No. 1 to 3 were not satisfied by the aforesaid order of remand made by the appellate authority and preferred farther appeal before the District Collector, Rajkot. Simultaneously, the petitioner also filed an appeal against the order of the Deputy Collector before the District Collector, Rajkot. The appeals of respondents No. 1 to 3 and the petitioner were registered as Appeal No. 137/81 and 145/81 respectively. The District Collector, Rajkot decided both the appeals on 19th January, 1982. The appeal filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 was dismissed whereas the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed and the order made in favour of the petitioner by the City Survey Officer was restored. The orders made by the District Collector, Rajkot in the appeals of the petitioner and respondents no. 1 to 3 were challenged by the respondents no. 1 to 3 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by filing appeals No. 37-38/82. The respondent no. 5 who was not figured anywhere in the proceedings, reference of which has been given above, has filed an application in Appeal No. 37-38/82 and prayer has been made therein that he may be impleaded as party to the proceedings and be afforded an opportunity of hearing. His application was opposed by the petitioner by filing detailed reply to the Special Civil Application. The Tribunl has considered the application of respondent no. 5 and under its order dated 18th September, 1984, allowed the same. Hence, this Special Civil Application.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent no. 5 was neither necessary nor a proper party to the appeal filed by the respondents no. 1 to 3 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, and as such, the Tribunal has committed serious error of jurisdiction in allowing his application and ordered for his impleadment therein. It has next been contended that it was a dispute between the petitioner on one hand and respondents no. 1 to 3 on other and they were litigating. Whatever right the respondent No. 5 has in the land in dispute or in part thereof then he may have his own remedy other than to make request for impleading him in the appeal. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that by impleadment of respondent no. 5 in the appeal, the Tribunal has to decide the lis inter-se of the two respondents which normally should not have been. The respondent no. S has his own remedy available for the adjudication, determination of his right in the land or the part thereof elsewhere and not by filing an application in the Tribunal.