IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1731 of 2008 Sri 108 Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Jyotirmath, Joshimath, District Chamoli. … Petitioner. Versus The Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun and three others. … Respondents. Mr. Keshav Datt Tripathi, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 4. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Mr. Pramod Belwal, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. Date July 11, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11- 7-2008, passed by the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner in the Second Appeal No. 101 of 2005-06 (Annexure-1 to the petition) whereby the impleadment application moved by the respondent no.3 was allowed. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that a Revenue Suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short the Act) was filed by late Shanta Nand Saraswati. The petitioner herein claims to be the legal heir of late Shantanand Saraswati. The suit was dismissed by the Assistant Collector on 18-12-1976. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant Collector, late Shantanand Saraswati (plaintiff) preferred First Appeal before the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri Garhwal. The appeal was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 21-8-1989. Aggrieved by the order dated 21-8-1989, the respondent no.2-Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati preferred Second Appeal (Second Appeal No. 101 of 2005-2006) before the Board of Revenue, Allahabad and on creation of the new State of 2 Uttaranchal, the same was transferred to the Chief Revenue Commissioner and subsequently to the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand. The same is still pending. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, one Sri Sushilanand Saraswati, respondent no.3 herein moved an application, claiming himself to be Chela of Swami Dwarikeshanand Saraswati, to be impleaded in place of Dwarikeshanand Saraswati (Annexure-12 to the writ petition). The application was allowed by the impugned order, therefore, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- respondent in second appeal. It is pertinent to mention here at this stage that the appellant Sri Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati has no objection in impleading Swami Sushila Nand Saraswati in place of Dwarikeshanand Saraswati, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent. The writ petition has been resisted by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 by filing their counter affidavit separately. In rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has reiterated the averments made in the memo of writ petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently urged that a declaratory Suit is also pending for declaration and injunction between Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati and the present petitioner in civil court regarding Gaddi of Shankaracharya. In that suit, against the temporary injunction application, one of the party, namely, Swami Swaroopanand Saraswai approached the Apex Court for assailing the order of status quo passed by the Allahabad High Court. The impleadment application of Swami Sushilanand Saraswati was rejected by the Apex Court. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has contended that it is altogether a different suit. The land is recorded in the name of the respondent no.2 Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati and the plaintiff-petitioner had filed Suit No. 513 of 1989 for declaration under Section 229B of the Act and the jurisdiction to try 3 the suit is vested in the revenue court only to declare a person to be Bhumidhar of the land in question. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has submitted in reply that the Apex Court has rejected the application for impleadment in Special Leave Petition (Civil Appeal No.4612 of 2005, Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati Vs. Jagat Guru Shankaracharya Jyotish Peetha and the matter in issue pertained to a dispute of title of Gaddi of Shankarachaya and not pertaining to the suit land. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 drew the attention of this Court to an order dated 23-8-2005 passed in Writ petition No. 32 of 2000 (old No. 6283 of 1983), wherein the order of impleadment of late Dwarikeshanand Saraswati dated 8-2-1983 passed by the Board of Revenue, Allahabad, was assailed by the petitioner. This Court disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the Second Appellate Court is directed that the matter be heard on merits and it will be open to the parties to demonstrate before the appellate Court with regard to all the aspect including the deletion of Swami Dwarikeshanand. An objection was raised before the writ court that Dwarikeshanand had died, therefore, in view of this fact, the Court left open the question to the second appellate Court to hear the matter if such objection is raised by the petitioner. Now this fact is not disputed that Dwarikeshanand had died and Sushilanand has moved an application for impleadment in his place. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impleadment application was moved belatedly. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and by a perusal of the impugned order, it shows that Dwarikeshanand Saraswati was impleaded by Board of Revenue Allahabad and his place respondent no.3 herein-Sushilanand Saraswati moved application to implead himself as a respondent and the appellant in Second Appeal and respondent no.2 herein has no objection if he is impleaded as respondent, therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner if Swami Sushilanand Saraswai 4 is impleaded as a respondent in Second Appeal. The learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner has rightly impleaded Swami Sushilanand Saraswati as a respondent. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the legal objections in second appeal whether Sushilanand Saraswati succeeded to Swami Dwarikeshanand Saraswati as his Chela or not or whether they have any right in the land in dispute or not. It is also directed that the Second Appeal No. 101/2005-06 will be decided by the learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner on its own merits after hearing all the parties concerned, expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the Second Appellate Court. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy. Interim order dated 8-2-2010 is vacated. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP