1 D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.991/2007 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Udaipur. vs. State of Rajasthan and another. Date : 21.5.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. HON'BLE MR. CHAND MAL TOTLA, J. Mr.RS Saluja, for the appellant. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti preferred writ petition to challenge the order dated 6.11.2002 (Annex.3) and 30.4.2003 (Annex.7) passed by the District Collector, Udaipur in the matter of dropping the land acquisition proceedings. The writ petition was preferred by impleading only State of Rajasthan and Land Acquisition Officer without impleading the private persons whose land was cleared by the impugned order. The above writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 8.1.2007. The learned Single Judge observed that the notification under Section 6 was issued way back on 15.4.1991 and there was no stay of the proceedings of acquisition with respect to remaining land, except 1 bigha 19 biswas. In view of 2 the above, the learned Single Judge held that the proceedings were rightly declared as lapsed. The appeal has been preferred to challenge judgment of the learned Single Judge on 16.3.2007 but again without impleading the persons who were to be affected if any order is passed in the writ petition or appeal in favour of the petitioner/appellant. The special appeal was argued by the counsel for the appellant on merit before the affected parties were added as party even in this appeal. According to learned counsel for the appellant, he moved application for impleading the private party in the appeal as well as writ petition. However, from the record, we found that no such application is tagged in this appeal. Be it as it may be, since the aggrieved parties were not impleaded in the writ petition itself and that was dismissed and the appeal has been preferred without impleading those private parties in the appeal and appeal was argued in a matter where the impugned orders were passed way back on 6.11.2002 and 30.4.2003, we do not find any just reason to allow the appellant/petitioner to implead the private parties in the appeal and in the writ petition which was not only filed without impleading the necessary party but was argued on merits by the appellant/petitioner itself and 3 after dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner did not choose to implead private person as party. In view of the above, this special appeal is dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. (CHAND MAL TOTLA), J. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya