SHYAMLAL Vs. MANGILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

(2.) The record shows that respondent No.1 has filed an application before the Tehsildar against respondent No.2 under Sec. 250 of the Code, 1959 for recovery of possession of the disputed lands. During course of proceedings the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for being impleaded as a party submitting that he is lawful owner of the disputed lands and is also in possession thereof hence is a necessary party to the proceedings. The application was rejected by the Tehsildar by observing that the petitioner has raised issue as regards title to the disputed lands which is beyond scope of proceedings and that he may raise his grievances as regards title before the competent Court. The said order has been maintained in revision preferred by petitioner by the Additional Collector by the impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are apparently illegal and contrary to law. In the application for impleadment the petitioner had not only pleaded his title to the disputed lands but had also specifically averred as regards being in possession thereof. The said aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration at all. Since the proceedings are under Sec. 250 of the Code, 1959, the issue as regards possession is the primary issue which had been specifically raised by petitioner. It is further submitted that in case the proceedings are decided in absence of petitioner, his possession to the disputed lands shall be lost without him being heard in the matter.