IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1530 of 2006 MAHESHWARI MEHTA (EX-UP-PRAMUKH, DHAMDAHA PANCHAYAT SAMITI), SON OF SHRI BAIJNATH MEHTA, AT AND P.O. CHANDRAHI, P.S. DHAMDAHA, DISTRICT-PURNEA. ……………………………………………INTERVENOR/PETITIONER. Versus 1. DEO NARAIN PANDIT. 2. JOGENDRA PANDIT. 3. UPENDRA PANDIT. SONS OF LATE NATHAN PANDIT, BY CASTE KUMHAR, BY OCCUPATION LANDLESS LABOUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUNWARI, TOLA CHANDRAHI, P.S. DHAMDAHA, DISTRICT- PURNIA. ………………………….PLAINTIFFS/OPPOSITE PARTY IST SET. 4. THE MUKHIA (SRI NIRBHAI KUMAR), GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ CHANDRAHI (THARHI-RAJU) P.S. DHAMDAHA, DISTRICT-PURNIA. 5. SRI AWADHESH KUMAR, SAMITI MEMBER, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ CHANDRAHI (THARHI-RAJU) P.S. DHAMDAHA, DISTRICT-PURNEA. 6. SRI DOMI METHA, SON OF LATE LALJEE METHA. 7. SRI SOMAN RISHIDEO, SON OF LATE BHOGAN RISHIDEO. 8. CHHOTE LALL RISHIDEO, SON OF LATE KALI RISHIDEO. NOS.3 TO 5 RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-KUNVARI TOLA CHANDRAHI (CHANDANI CHOWK): P.S. DHAMDAHA, DISTRICT-PURNEA. NOS.1 TO 5 ALL IN PERSONAL AS WELL AS IN REPRESENTAVIE CAPACITIES OF THE LOCAL PUBLIC. …………………..DEFENDANTS/OPPOSITE PARTT 2ND SET. …………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Jayaswal and Mrs. Anjana Bhagat, Advocates. For Opposite Party : Mr. Md. Bahauddin, Advocate. Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 8 -------------- 7. 6.10.2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 8. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 28.6.2006 passed by the Sadar Munsif, Purnea in Title Suit No.23 of - 2 - 2005, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for impleadment as party- defendant under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) has been rejected. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was Ex- Up- Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat at that point of time and, thus, he had the right to sue and be sued on behalf of the Panchayat Samiti or Gram Panchayat concerned. It is further submitted that the land concerned is recorded as Gair Mazaura Sarva Sadharan in the records of the rights. The Collector or the other authorities have not been impleaded as a party in the Suit concerned. Therefore, the Up- Pramukh (as the petitioner was at that point of time) had filed a petition for his impleadment as defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code to represent the rights of the villagers. It is also submitted that with regard to the said land a proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is still continuing between the plaintiff and certain other persons but they had also not been impleaded as a party in the Suit. Learned counsel for the opposite parties stated that the property in dispute is not Aam Rasta. However, the same has been recorded as Gair Mazarua Sarva Sadharan lands in the records of the rights. The suit had been filed for declaration of its personal homestead lands of the plaintiffs. It has also been stated that the petitioner is not a party to the aforesaid proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. Thus, he cannot claim to have any right to be impleaded as defendant in the Suit concerned in that regard. The Trial Court after due consideration of the rival - 3 - submissions of the learned counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that the intervenor-petitioner had failed to demonstrate that he had a right to be sued on behalf of the concerned Gram Panchayat. It is also stated that the Mukhiya and a Member of the Panchayat Samiti had already been impleaded as defendants in the suit. Thus, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)