1 1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6890/2005 Laxmi Narayan & Anr. vs. Board of Rev. & Ors. 2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6880/2005 Laxmi Narayan & Anr. vs. Board of Rev. & Ors. Date : 11.1.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Sajjan Singh, for the petitioners. Mr.MC Bhoot, for the respondent no.4. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved against two orders dated 15.10.2005 by which the private respondent no.4 was impleaded as party at the appellate stage. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the lis under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act can be initiated by the State Government, may it be on the information submitted by the private party. In that proceeding, the private party, may it be complainant, cannot be impleaded as party in the proceedings. It is also submitted that the order which is being sought by the State is against the 2 petitioners on the ground of alleged trespass and in this case, eviction order was passed and thereafter, holding it as a second trespass, the lower authority – Tehsildar, Siwana has passed the order of civil imprisonment and that was challenged by the petitioners before the District Collector and the District Collector had no right to implead the private respondent as party. The petitioners' challenge to implead the private respondent as party was negatived by the Board of Revenue after considering the fact that the order under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act was passed at the instance of the added party and, therefore, if the appellate court impleaded the said complainant as party, the appellate court has not committed any error of law. Under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the Court has supervisory jurisdiction and the petitioners failed to show how in such a summary proceeding, the case of the petitioners can be prejudiced by the presence of the respondent and particularly, when the respondent has been impleaded by the first appellate authority and challenge to it has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue. It is not a fit case to interfere in the 3 impugned order even if it is held that the party should not have been impleaded. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya