BHURIA @ BHURA RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally at this stage itself.

(2.) THE short point involved in this matter has arisen in the background of the facts that an appeal (Revenue Appeal No. 46/2010) has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.04.2010 as passed by the Tehsildar, Desuri in relation to the dispute about mutation in the revenue record; and the same is pending before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur. The respondent No. 6 herein, moved an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the said appellate authority for being impleaded as a party in the appeal with the assertion that he was a bona fide purchaser of 1/4th of the land in question. The application was contested on behalf of the petitioner with the submissions that the applicant, who had allegedly purchased the land in question during the pendency of the litigation, could not be impleaded as a party.

(3.) THE impugned order dated 01.03.2012 is an apposite example of a non-speaking order where the subordinate revenue authority has not stated any reason whatsoever in support of its conclusion. On this ground alone, the impugned order is required to be set aside.