IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1374 of 2009 (M/S) Abhishek @ Vinay Pratap son of Shri Vinod Prakash, resident of Atmalpur Bongla, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil and District Haridwar. ……Petitioner. Versus Gulshan Parvej son of Faiz Mohammad resident of Yogendrapuri, Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) and four others. …….Respondents. Sri Sachin Panwar, Advocate holding brief for Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Nagesh Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent no. 1. Sri R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the respondent no. 4. Sri Sushil Vashisht, Advocate, holding brief for Sri Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. Dated:- 21.8.2009 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 28.02.2009 and 27.5.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri and the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun respectively whereby the prayer of the petitioner to implead respondent no. 5 has been rejected by both the courts below. According to the petitioner brief facts of the present writ petition are that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the co- sharer of the petitioner’s land of which the petitioner is a recorded owner. The petitioner never took loan from respondent no.5 but it is respondent nos. 2 and 3 who took loan, and in the garb of recovery certificate issued against the respondent nos. 2 and 3, the land of the petitioner is being auctioned. The petitioner preferred objection under Rule 285-I of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Z.A. & L.R. Rules) before the Commissioner, Pauri, Campt Dehradun. During the pendency of the said objection the petitioner moved impleadment application for impleading Khadi Gramodhyog Commision- respondent no. 5 as a party therein, which was rejected by the Commissioner, vide order dated 28.2.2009. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.2.2009 petitioner filed a revision before the Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhad, Dehradun. The Chief Revenue Commissioner also rejected the revision on the ground that the Khadi Gramodhyog Commisioner is not a necessary party and agreed with the observation of the Commissioner that after issuing recovery certificate, the Khadi Gramodhyog Commissioner has no right of interference. The recovery has been made by the agency through Collector as has been provided under the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while dismissing the impleadment application the learned Commissioner has observed that the recovery was made in compliance of the recovery certificate as per Rule, and this observation would affect the merit of the case while deciding the objection finally which was filed by the petitioner under Rule 285-I of Z.A. & L.R. Rules. So far as the rejection of the application to implead respondent no. 5 as a party is concerned, orders of the Commissioner as well as learned Chief Revenue Commissioner need no interference because the respondent no. 5 is not a necessary party. The respondent no. 5 is the agency who gave loan to the respondent nos.2 and 3. The objection of the petitioner has to be decided on merit by the learned Commissioner on the ground whether he took loan from respondent no. 5 or not or his land can be auctioned or not. The impugned order of rejection of impleadment application does not suffer from any manifest error of law or perversity. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. However, it is directed that the learned Commissioner shall decide the objection of the petitioner filed under Rule 285-I of the Z.A. & L.R. Rules on merit after hearing the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. Stay application no. 7214 of 2009 stands disposed of accordingly. (B.S.Verma, J.) 21.8.2009 RMY