HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition no. 1149 (M/S) 2006 Uttaranchal Van Vikas Nigam, Aranya Bhawan, 73, Nehru Road, Dehradun, Through its Managing Director. – Petitioner. Versus 1. Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttaranchal, Dehradun, 2. Atar Singh S/o Munga, Resident of Bahadurpur, 3. Amar Singh S/o Nain Singh, Resident of Jamanpur, 4. Kunwar Singh S/o Nauratu, Resident of Kunwari, 5. Kundan S/o Mungga, Resident of Bahadurpur, 6. Raja Ram S/o Sirtu, Resident of Shela Kui, 7. Dharam Singh S/o Khijhi, Resident of Bahadurpur, 8. Ram Singh S/o Fakira, Resident of Shelakui, 9. Ram Sumer S/o Matlu, Resident of Village Lain, 10. Ram Chander S/o Kallu, Resident of Lain, 11. Om Pal S/o Harkesh, Resident of village Shelakui, 12. Babu Ram S/o Harkesh, Resident of village-Shelakui, All resident of Central Hope Town, Pargana- Pachhawadun, Dehradun, 13. State of Uttaranchal, through Collector, Dehradun, 14. Gaon Sabha, Central Hope Town, Pargana- Pachhawadun, Dehradun, Through its Pradhan. –Respondents. Sri V.K. Bisht, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Sri Sudhir Singh, adv. for the petitioner, Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos. 1 & 13, Ms. Geeta Parihar, learned counsel for respondent no. 14. None for the respondent nos. 2 to 12. 2 Hon’ble M.M. Ghidiyal, J. Heard Sri V.K. Bisht, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Sudhir Singh, adv. for the petitioner, Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos. 1 & 13 and Ms. Geeta Parihar, learned counsel for respondent no. 14. This writ petition has been filed for seeking following reliefs:- i. Set aside the order dated 09.06.2006 passed by respondent no. 1 and allow the application of the petitioner dated 09.06.2006 for taking certain documents on record, ii. Direct the respondent no. 1 to decide the impleadment application of the petitioner at the earliest, iii. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, iv. Award the cost of petition to the petitioner. The facts in brief, as narrated in the writ petition, are that vide order dated 13th January 1986 the Assistant Collector, Dehradun passed order canceling the lease earlier granted in favour of respondent nos. 2 to 12 and directed for their eviction from the land in dispute and also expunge their names from the revenue records. Aggrieved with this order, the respondent nos. 2 to 12 filed Z.A. Appeal no. 2 of 1985-86 before the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri, who on 15.01.1986 dismissed the said appeal preferred by the respondent nos. 2 to 12. 3 The respondent nos. 2 to 12 filed second appeal bearing no. 20 of 1986-87 before the Board of Revenue, Allahabad against the judgment and order dated 15.01.1986 passed by the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri. On 23.09.1993, the second appeal was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue, Allahabad. The respondent nos. 2 to 12, thereafter filed a Review Petition against the order dated 23.09.1993 before the Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttaranchal. During the pendency of Review Petition, the petitioner- Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation moved application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment on the ground that the land in dispute is in the possession of the Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation since 20 years and they have interest over the land in dispute, as the land was given to the petitioner in the year 1985 on rent by respondent nos. 2 to 12, as such, the Forest Corporation is the necessary party. While the application under Order-1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. was pending before the Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttaranchal, another application was moved by the Corporation on 09.06.2006 for accepting certain documents on record. On the same date the said application was rejected by the respondent no. 1 on the ground that since the Forest Corporation is not a party in the case, no document can be accepted filed on their behalf. To this extent, the Chief Revenue Commissioner is correct, that since the Forest Corporation was not a party in the case, any document filed by them cannot be taken on record. But it was proper for the Chief Revenue Commissioner to decide first the impleadment application moved by the Forest Corporation under Order-1 rule 10(2) of 4 the Code of Civil Procedure and then have proceeded further on hearing on the application filed for accepting certain documents on record. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice, I direct the respondent no. 1 to take decision on the application of Forest Corporation moved under Order-1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. for impleadment. In case, the Forest Corporation is permitted to be impleaded, the Forest Corporation may move application thereafter for accepting documents, which are necessary for proper adjudication of the case. The Stay Application no. 10916/06 stands disposed of. With this direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) August 25, 2006: NCM: