1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5137 of 2024 1 - Sunil Agrawal S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o Banaras Chowk, Ambikapur, Tahsil - Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.),..(Objector Before Resp. No. 01) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, New Mantralaya Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Baijnath Keshari S/o Shri Ramlakhan Keshari Aged About 47 Years Caste - Kesharwani, R/o Rest House Road, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.),...(Applicant Before Resp. No. 01) 3 - Gopal Prasad Shrivastava S/o Late Kuldeep Sahai Aged About 68 Years Caste - Kayasth, R/o Ward No. 06, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.),..(Non-Applicant No. 01 Before Resp. No. 01) --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 5938 of 2024 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1 - Ramchandra Prasad Gupta S/o Shri Laxmi Prasad Gupta, Aged About 62 Years R/o Ramanujganj, Tahsil-Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ----(Objector Before Resp No.1) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, New Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District-Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Baijnath Keshari S/o Shri Ramlakhan Keshari, Aged About 47 Years Caste-Kesharwani, R/o Rest House Road, Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) -----(Applicant Before Resp No.1) 3 - Gopal Prasad Shrivastava S/o Late Kuldeep Sahai, Aged About 68 Years Caste-Kayasth, R/o Ward No. 06, Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ------(Non-Applicant No.1 Before Resp No.01) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :- Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State :- Mr. S.S. Choubey, G.A. For Respondents No. 2 & 3 :- Mr. K.A. Ansari, Senior Advocate appears along with Mr. Rohan Patnaik, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Aman Ansari, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 24.04.2026 1. As the impugned order in the present petition is identical and arises out of the same proceedings, the present petitions are being decided by this common order. 3 2. By way of these petitions, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by Respondent No.1, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908 for impleadment has been rejected. 3. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is that Respondent No.3 was originally granted patta of land bearing Khasra No. 78/4, area 4.047 hectares, situated at Ramanujganj. Thereafter, in compliance with the order dated 15.06.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, portions of the said land were sold to various purchasers including the present petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 25.06.2012. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 challenged the revenue proceedings and carried the matter in appeal and thereafter in revision before the competent authorities. The revision proceedings ultimately came to be filed before Respondent No.1. According to the petitioners, he being a purchaser of the disputed land is a necessary and proper party to the said proceedings. However, he was not impleaded at earlier stages and came to know about the pending revision only subsequently, whereupon he filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 09.10.2024, hence these petitions. 4. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- 4 “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the present Petitioner from the Respondent authorities concerned for kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 09.10.2024 (ANNEXURE P/1). Passed by the respondent no.1 and further be pleased to allow the application under order 1 Rule 10 of CPC of the petitioner in the interest of justice. 10.3 The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), as it may deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the land in question by a registered sale deed and, therefore, is directly affected by the outcome of the pending revision proceedings. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not made a party before the Collector as well as before the Commissioner and, therefore, he had no knowledge of the proceedings at the relevant time. Learned counsel contends that once the petitioner came to know about the revision pending before Respondent No.1, he promptly filed an application for impleadment, which has been rejected in an arbitrary and mechanical manner. It is argued that non-impleadment of the 5 petitioner would result in violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner would be adversely affected without being heard. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submit that the petitioner did not take any steps to get himself impleaded before the authorities below and has approached at a belated stage. It is contended that allowing impleadment at the stage of revision would delay the proceedings and may result in remand, thereby causing prejudice to Respondent No.2. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is further not in dispute that, vide order dated 15.06.2012, the Commissioner passed an order whereby the present petitioner was granted permission to purchase land from Smt. Sorthi Devi on an application filed by her. The petitioner was a party to the said proceedings, in which respondent No. 3 herein was also a party. However, in the subsequent proceedings, the present petitioner was not impleaded as a party respondent and, as such, had no knowledge thereof. It is pertinent to mention that in Revision No. एफ 10-01/सात-1/पुन. अभ्या/2021-22 pending before the Board of Revenue, the present respondent No. 2, Baijnath Kesri, who has filed the revision before the Secretary, Revenue Department, has also filed another revision in which he has arrayed the present petitioner as respondent No. 3. This clearly 6 indicates that respondent No. 2 was fully aware of the petitioner’s interest in the matter. Despite such knowledge, respondent No. 2 deliberately did not implead the present petitioner as a party respondent in the concerned proceedings, with an apparent intent to obtain an order behind the back of the petitioner. It further appears that respondent No. 2 has not approached the Secretary, Revenue Department with clean hands while filing the revision petition. 9. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to be a stranger to the proceedings. Rather, he is a necessary party whose presence is essential for complete and effective adjudication of the dispute. The rejection of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, without affording an opportunity of hearing to a person whose rights are likely to be affected, is contrary to the settled principles of natural justice. The contention of Respondent No.2 that impleadment at this stage would delay the proceedings cannot outweigh the fundamental requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing to an affected party. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.10.2024 passed by Respondent No.1 is hereby set aside. The concerned authority (Respondent No.1) is directed to implead the petitioner as a party in the pending revision proceedings. The said authority shall thereafter decide the revision afresh, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. 7 11. The writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha