[2025:RJ-JP:45791-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 639/2025 Ranjeet Singh Meena S/o Neta Ram Meena, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Neta Baba Ki Dhani, Village Chainpura, Jawahar Circle, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus 1. Ramraj Meena, (Since Deceased) Through Assignee:- 1/1. Shri Hanumant Singh S/o Shri Harishchandra Meena, aged about 39 years, R/o 4-K-O, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 1/2. Shri Naangram Meena S/o Shri Gopal Lal Meena, aged about 52 years, R/o Plot No. A 18-19, Prem Colony, Amali Kothi, Taaro ki Koonth, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Rakesh Meena S/o Late Ram Kumar Meena, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Chainpura, Near Jawahar Circle, Tehsil-Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.) 3. State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary to the Government, Department Of Urban Development and Housing, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. State of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary (I) to the Government, Department Of Urban Development And Housing, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 5. Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Through Its Commissioner Jawahar Lal Nehru Road, Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, Jaipur 6. Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Through Its Secretary Jawahar Lal Nehru Road, Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anirudh Tyagi For Respondent(s) : Ms. Alankrita Sharma [2025:RJ-JP:45791-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-639/2025] HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 13/11/2025 1. The challenge is to the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9017/2023 whereby learned Single Judge had passed the following order:- “6. This Court is of the considered opinion that when the applicant himself has filed an independent and separate S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5098/2023 and the Khasra numbers of acquired lands for which petitioners are claiming compensation by way of 25% developed land in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9017/2023, are also included in the subject lands for which applicant is claiming compensation by way of 25% developed land in his S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5098/2023 and the writ petition filed by the applicant is tagged with the present writ petition, therefore, it is not necessary to allow impleadment of applicant in the present S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9017/2023, however, it is hereby observed that since both writ petitions are tagged, hence, same shall be heard and decided together. Thus, the contentions of the applicant, may be considered by the Court while deciding the present S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9017/2023 along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5098/2023 and no prejudice would be caused to the applicant due to declining his impleadment in the present writ petition. 7. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, prayer of applicant to implead him as respondent in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9017/2023 is rejected, however, it is hereby observed that S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9017/2023 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5098/2023 shall be heard and decided together “ 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petitioners are the owner of the land for which the compensation is being sought by the respondents in the writ petition and the respondents had no right to claim the compensation as the respondent’s father Tara alias Taru had gone in adoption to one [2025:RJ-JP:45791-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-639/2025] Girdharilal and therefore, could not have claimed compensation relating to acquired lands belonging to Bhonrya. The appellant has also filed S.B. Civil writ petition No.5098/2023 before the Court claiming compensation for the land which has been acquired from him. So far as to the writ petition where application for impleadment has been moved as the writ petition has been filed by the respondent in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9017/2023, the learned Single Judge has already tagged both the writ petitions and directed to be heard together. Learned counsel has also relied on the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S J.N. Real Estate vs. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors. 2025 INSC 611 which essentially is on the question as to whether the person can be treated as a necessary party or as a proper party. The law was firstly laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar AIR 1963 SC 786, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- 9. The next question is whether the parties whose rights are directly affected are the necessary parties to a writ petition to quash the order of a tribunal. As we have seen, a tribunal or authority performs a judicial or quasi-judicial act after hearing parties. Its order affects the right or rights of one or the other of the parties before it. In a writ of certiorari the defeated party seeks for the quashing of the order issued by the tribunal in favour of the successful party. How can the High Court vacate the said order without the successful party being before it. Without the presence of the successful party the High Court cannot issue a substantial order affecting his right. Any or that may be issued behind the back of such a party can be ignored by the said party, with the result that the tribunal's order would be quashed but the right vested in that party by the wrong order [2025:RJ-JP:45791-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-639/2025] of the tribunal would continue to be effective. Such a party, therefore, is a necessary party and a petition filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari without making him a party or without impleading him subsequently, if allowed by the court, would certainly be incompetent. A party whose interests are directly affected is, therefore, a necessary party. 10. In addition, there may be parties who may be described as proper parties, that is parties whose presence is not necessary for making an effective order, but whose persence may facilitate the settling of all the questions that may be involved in the controversy. The question of making such a person as a party to a writ proceeding depends upon the judicial discretion of the High Court in the circumstances of each case. Either one of the parties to the proceeding may apply for the impleading of such a parry or such a party may suo motu approach the court for being impleaded therein.” 3. In Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal, (2005) 6 SCC 733 the scope of order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC was again considered. In Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels (P) Ltd. 2010 7 SCC 417 the scope was again explained and it was held that the plaintiff being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and seek relief and impleadment cannot be claimed as a right. 4. In the judgment cited before us M/S J.N. Real Estate (Supra) while considering Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. (Supra) cited its observations wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that even a proper party may not be impleaded if it changes the nature of suit or introduces a new cause of action. So [2025:RJ-JP:45791-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-639/2025] far as the dispute between the parties before us is concerned, admittedly, civil appeal is pending at the appellate stage. 5. Be that as it may, considering that the claim made by the respondents is only against the execution authorities, no case for impleadment is made out as this Court is going to decide the rights of the parties in writ petition claiming compensation. 6. The Special Appeal Writ is accordingly, dismissed. 7. All pending applications shall stand disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Diksha-199