[2025:RJ-JP:42912] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14159/2025 Ram Pratap Singh S/o. Shri Narayan Singh, Aged About 66 Years, R/o. Diggi House, Sawai Ramsingh Highway, C-Scheme, Jaipur. (As Per Order Dated 15.01.2024) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Raj Bala Yadav W/o. Late Shri Tridivesh Yadav, R/o. House No. 2209, Selo Ki Gali, Gangauri Bazaar, Jaipur - 302001. (As Per Order Dated 26.06.2025) 2. Sudhanshu Yadav S/o. Late Shri Tridivesh Yadav, R/o. House No. 2209, Selo Ki Gali, Gangauri Bazaar, Jaipur - 302001. (As Per Order Dated 26.06.2025) ----Respondents/Non-Appellant No. 6 And 7 3. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, Tehsil And District Jaipur. ----Performa Respondent/Defendant No. 2 4. Digvijay Singh 5. Surya Vijay Singh 6. Ambika Pratap Singh All S/o. Late Shri Bhawani Singh, R/o. Village Devri, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur. ----Performa Respondent/Plaintiff 1/1 to 1/3 7. State of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur ----Performa Respondent/Defendant No. 1 8. Prithvi Singh Adopted S/o. Shri Shyam Singh (Deceased), Through His Legal Representatives (As Per Order Dated 15.09.2014) 8/1. Smt. Renu Singh W/o. Late Shri Prithvi Singh 8/2. Shri Pradhyuman Singh S/o. Late Shri Prithvi Singh 8/3. Divya Singh D/o. Late Shri Prithvi Singh 8/4. Karnika Singh D/o. Late Shri Prithvi Singh All R/o. Village Devri, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur. Present R/o. Plot No. 07, Sultan Nagar, Gurjar Ki Thadi, Jaipur. ----Performa Respondent/Defendants 9. Smt. Rajkumari W/o. Late Shri Bhawani Singh, R/o. [2025:RJ-JP:42912] (2 of 4) [CW-14159/2025] Village Devri, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur 10. Smt. Rukmani D/o. Late Shri Bhawani Singh, R/o. Village Padampur, Distt. Sriganganagar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshad Kapoor, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Chand Katara, Adv. for respondent no. 1 & 2 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 27/10/2025 1. This petition has been filed against the order dated 26.06.2025 passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as learned 'Board'), wherein respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been impleaded as necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the appeal pending before it. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an agreement to sell the disputed land was executed in the year 1988, in favour of the husband of respondent No.1 and thereafter, Respondent No.1 has filed suit for specific performance after a delay of almost 36 years. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the other respondents have preferred a suit against Respondent No.3- JDA before Sub Divisional Officer Jaipur Metropolitan II (hereinafter referred to as learned 'SDO') and vide order dated 08.10.2008 passed by learned SDO, the same was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 08.10.2008, the respondents preferred an appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as learned 'Appellate Authority'), wherein appeal was allowed vide order dated 07.06.2010. Thereafter, aggrieved by the said order passed by the [2025:RJ-JP:42912] (3 of 4) [CW-14159/2025] learned Appellate Authority, respondent No. 3– JDA filed an appeal against respondents namely-Digvijay Singh and Ors. before the learned Board in the year 2010 and after a delay of almost 12 years, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for their impleadment as necessary parties in the said appeal, wherein vide impugned order dated 26.06.2025, the said application was allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that while allowing the application, the learned Board has not considered the fact that since no sale deed has been executed in their favour, there is no title in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2, and thereby, they are claiming the disputed land only on the basis of an agreement to sell executed in the year 1988. Hence, respondent Nos.1 and 2 cannot be impleaded as necessary parties in the said appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the learned Board be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that an agreement to sell was executed in favour of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 with regard to the disputed land and they have filed a suit regarding specific performance and permanent injunction, which is still pending before the Competent Court. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that respondent No.1 is in possession of the disputed land and therefore; is a necessary party in the pending proceedings. It is further submitted that vide impugned order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the learned Board, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been rightly impleaded as necessary parties in the [2025:RJ-JP:42912] (4 of 4) [CW-14159/2025] proceedings. Hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of J N Real Estate Vs. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5405 & 5406/2025) decided on 22.04.2025 and the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur in the case of Rajendra Kumar Vs. Rameshwari & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7992/2024) decided on 19.11.2024. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is an admitted fact that an agreement to sell was executed in favour of the husband and father of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively with regard to the disputed land and thereby, regarding the same, a suit for specific performance has been filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, which is pending before the Competent Court, therefore, vide impugned order dated 26.06.2025, the Board of Revenue, Ajmer has not committed any illegality in allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading respondent Nos.1 and 2 as necessary parties in the appeal pending before it, therefore, no ground for interference is made out in the impugned order. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), also stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J TANISHA /3