IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14425 of 2010 1. LAKHIYA DEVI W/O MANGAL CHAND PRASAD R/O VILL BAKROUR, P.S. BODHGAYA, DISTT-GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COLLECTOR GAYA 2. CIRCLE OFFICER BODH GAYA ANCHAL, BODHGAYA, DISTT- GAYA 3. SONIA DEVI MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT BAKROUR, P.S.BODHGAYA, DISTT-GAYA ----------- 2. 03.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner as the plaintiff is aggrieved by the order dated 7.5.2010 of the Munsif IInd Gaya in Title Suit No. 83 of 2007 by which the application of respondent no. 3, the Mukhiya, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to be added as party defendant has been allowed. Learned counsel submits that the Mukhiya is not a necessary party. No relief has been sought against her. The relief prayed for in the suit is only for declaration of title over the suit lands. The respondent no. 3 was also unlawfully seeking to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the lands by the petitioner. Counsel for the State submits that issues of the lands in question being public lands in the village arise. Objection has been raised by respondent no. 3, that the land in dispute belongs to the village, of public utility, being used for general public and therefore they have a right to 2 pursue the cause and interest of the villagers. The impugned order noticing the contention of the parties arrives at the conclusion that based on the survey entries vis-à-vis the claim of the petitioner, respondent no. 3 being from the same Gram Panchayat, it was in the interest of justice and the people of the village concerned that she may be permitted to be added as a party for the effective adjudication of the issue. There can be no doubt that the Mukhiya pursues the cause of the villagers if the allegation be of unlawful encroachment of public land which is a mater yet to be decided in the suit itself. If the petitioner claims to be in possession of the lands and the same is being interfered with by the respondent no. 3, during the pendency of the suit and for which an application for interim relief of injunction has been filed, naturally it is required to be disposed off by the Court below by a reasoned and speaking order after hearing all concerned. The Court finds no merit in the challenge to the impugned order dated 7.5.2010. The writ application is dismissed to that extent. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)