S.K Singh, J.:— Challenge in this petition is the judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.6.2000 and that of the Consolidation Officer dated 3.5.2000
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate who appeared for private respondents have been heard.
3. There is no dispute about the fact that in the basic year record, name of Jagmohan was recorded. One Ram Babu claimed mutation on the basis of sale deed which is said to have been executed by Babu Ram on 2.8.1986 On the basis of that sale deed, name of Ram Babu was directed to be mutated by order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 17.10.1986
4. Against the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer, respondent No. 3 filed appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for decision on merits. It is thereafter, petitioners claim to have obtained the land in dispute by means of registered sale deed dated 6.9.1994 from Babu Ram and on the basis, he filed application for impleadment before the Consolidation Officer. That application has been rejected by order dated 3.5.2000 and revision filed by petitioners has also been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 27.6.2000 and thus, both orders are before this Court.
5. After hearing learned Counsel for parties, it is not necessary to mention facts in detail and thus, on brief narration disposal will be convenient. There is no dispute about the fact that the claim of respondent is to be contested by Babu Ram who claims his rights on the basis of sale deed dated 2.8.1986 which is said to have been executed by Jagmohan. Contest by the respondents is that Jagmohan died before execution of sale deed. Be as it may, it is matter of decision by the Consolidation Officer in the light of oral and documentary evidence which may come. In the meantime, as now the petitioners claim right in the land on the basis of sale deed dated 6.9.1994 which was executed by Babu Ram, he appears to have moved application for impleadment so that he on being party, may effectively contest the claim of respondents and may get his interest protected. If on these facts, as the respondent has to contest the matter against Babu Ram, now as it is the petitioner who is real beneficiary if he is permitted to be brought on record to contest the matter with respondent No. 3, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 3 will suffer in any manner and there will be any prejudice. This appears to be necessary for another reason also. There may be a situation that as Babu Ram has transferred the land, he might not effectively contest the proceeding and there may be a situation that he may collude with the respondent also and therefore, if the petitioner is permitted to join in the proceeding certainly, contest will be between the respondent at one hand and Babu Ram/petitioner on the other hand. In the event, some adverse order is passed against the interest of Babu Ram, petitioner may not have any other forum to get things cured and therefore, if for effective decision, petitioner claims himself to be impleaded as party, no exception can be taken to it. Admittedly, proceedings are at very initial stage and evidence of parties has not even begun and thus if at this stage both sides are made available adequate opportunity of pleading their case, leading evidence and then decision, this Court is of the view and it will be in the interest of justice to avoid multiplicity of proceeding.
6. For the reasons recorded above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgments of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.6.2000 and that of the Consolidation Officer dated 3.5.2000 are hereby quashed only to the extent by which impleadment application of petitioner was rejected and in respect to the order of Consolidation Officer dated 30.10.1999 by which restoration application of opposite party was allowed, that is hereby maintained. Now the petitioner will be permitted to be impleaded as one of contestant of the matter and now it will be the concern of Consolidation Officer to proceed in the matter with all expedition to decide the claim of parties on merits, in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of placing their version, leading evidence and arguments.
7. Petition Allowed.