Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gram Panchayat Thaladka vs Amar Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:44208) on 8 October, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:44208]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18809/2025
Gram Panchayat Thaladka, Through Its Sarpanch/ Administrator
Radheshyam S/o Jagdish, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of
Thaladka, Panchayat Samiti Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Amar Singh S/o Kumbharam, Thaladka, Tehsil Nohar,
District Hanumangarh (Raj).
2. Lalchand S/o Sanwla Ram, Aged About 52 Years,
Thaladka, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj).
3. Mahaveer S/o Manphool, Aged About 57 Years, Thaladka,
Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj).
4. Mahendra S/o Ranjeet, Aged About 37 Years, Thaladka,
Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj).
5. Ramswaroop S/o Sharwan Kumar, Aged About 47 Years,
Thaladka, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment / Order
08/10/2025
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge No. 1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in
Civil Appeal No. 34/2023, whereby the application filed by the
petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been rejected.
The brief facts of the case are that Plaintiff No. 1- Om
Prakash, instituted a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction
before the Court of the Civil Judge, Nohar, against Defendant-
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 04:34:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44208] (2 of 9) [CW-18809/2025]
Respondent No. 1 Amar Singh, seeking a decree of injunction in
respect of the common land (Chowk) situated in front of the
Government School. The present petitioner was also arrayed as
one of the plaintiffs in his personal capacity; however, upon
contesting the Gram Panchayat elections, he requested that his
name be deleted from the array of plaintiffs. Subsequently, the
Gram Panchayat moved an application for impleadment as a party
to the suit, asserting that the disputed property vested in the
Panchayat and that any judgment or order in the matter would
directly affect its rights and interests. Upon receiving notice of the
said application, Defendant-Respondent No. 1 filed a reply
thereto. The learned Civil Judge, vide order dated 29.04.2023,
partly allowed the application, permitting the Gram Panchayat to
be impleaded as an intervener, and directed it to file an affidavit
along with the relevant documents. In compliance therewith, the
petitioner filed his affidavit, upon which a detailed cross-
examination was conducted by the Defendant-Respondent No. 1.
After hearing both parties, the learned Civil Court, vide judgment
dated 24.11.2023, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs,
declaring the rights against Defendant-Respondent No. 1 and
restraining him from raising any construction on the disputed land.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, Defendant-
Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Court of the
Additional District Judge, Nohar, wherein he also arrayed the
present petitioner as a party to the appeal. During the pendency
of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule
10 of the CPC, seeking permission to be impleaded as an
intervener in the appellate proceedings. The said application was
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 04:34:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44208] (3 of 9) [CW-18809/2025]
opposed by Defendant-Respondent No. 1, who contended that the
petitioner was not a party to the original suit and, therefore, could
not be impleaded as a party at the appellate stage. Upon hearing
both sides, the learned Additional District Judge, Nohar, dismissed
the application vide order dated 04.09.2025. Aggrieved thereby,
the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
had already been permitted to intervene before the learned Trial
Court and had led evidence as a court witness. The learned Trial
Court decreed the suit primarily on the basis of the petitioner's
evidence. Hence, the petitioner possesses a legitimate right to be
impleaded as a party in the appellate proceedings. However, the
learned Appellate Court has committed a serious error of law and
fact in rejecting the petitioner's application under Order I Rule 10
CPC. It is further submitted that it is a well-settled principle of law
that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, and
any person who had appeared and participated in the trial under
orders of the Court is entitled to participate in the appellate
proceedings as well. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the
learned Appellate Court is unsustainable and contrary to settled
legal principles. Learned Counsel further contends that, initially, on
16.04.2016, an application was submitted by the residents of
village Thaladka seeking cancellation of the Patta issued in favour
of Defendant-Respondent No. 1. Acting upon the said application,
the District Collector forwarded the matter to the Vikas Adhikari,
Panchayat Samiti, Nohar for necessary action. The Vikas Adhikari,
in turn, directed an enquiry and called for a report from the
Panchayat Extension Officer. Pursuant thereto, the Panchayat
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 04:34:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44208] (4 of 9) [CW-18809/2025]
Extension Officer submitted his enquiry report dated 12.08.2016,
which revealed that the land claimed by Defendant-Respondent
No. 1 formed part of the public chowk situated in front of the
Government School of the village. Consequently, it was
recommended that the alleged Patta be cancelled. Despite the
issuance of a stay order dated 11.09.2016 by the Vikas Adhikari,
Panchayat Samiti, Nohar, restraining construction on the disputed
land, Defendant-Respondent No. 1 repeatedly attempted to raise
unauthorized construction thereon. Subsequently, a three-member
committee, constituted on 07.07.2020, conducted a fresh enquiry
and confirmed that the claim of Defendant-Respondent No. 1 was
inconsistent with his title documents. The committee found that
the disputed land formed part of a public road and common
chowk, and that the Patta relied upon by Defendant-Respondent
No. 1 was false and fabricated, as the land described therein
neither matched the colony layout nor corresponded with any plot
allotted under the Rajasthan Colonization Rules, 1971. After
affording due notice and opportunity of hearing, the Gram
Panchayat unanimously resolved to remove the encroachment,
which was executed with the assistance of the police and
executive magistrate. The District Collector, upon verification, duly
endorsed the action taken by the Panchayat authorities. It is
evident from the record that the disputed land does not form part
of the Patta of Defendant-Respondent No. 1 and, in fact, lies
within the old Abadi area, constituting a public thoroughfare.
Moreover, the order dated 27.06.2020, which was the subject
matter of the earlier writ petition, was subsequently withdrawn on
14.07.2020, thereby rendering that writ petition infructuous.
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 04:34:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44208] (5 of 9) [CW-18809/2025]
Furthermore, as the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act provides an
alternative and efficacious statutory remedy by way of appeal or
revision, the present writ petition is not maintainable in law and
is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. To buttress his contentions,
counsel has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Mauru Mallappa (D) Thr. Lrs. vs. Kuruvathappa &
Ors. Reported in 2020 AIR (SC) 925.
Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant respondent No.
1 vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner and filed a detailed reply to the present writ petition. He
submitted that it is not in dispute that the Gram Panchayat, being
a statutory body, can institute or defend legal proceedings only
through its authorized officer and not through the Sarpanch in his
personal capacity. He further contended that the administrative
powers to initiate or defend any proceedings lie with the Village
Development Officer (VDO), who is the competent and authorized
officer of the Gram Panchayat to act in such matters, after
obtaining due sanction from the competent higher authorities. In
the instant case, however, the petitioner, who happens to be the
Sarpanch, has sought to participate in the proceedings due to
personal animosity and political rivalry with Defendant-
Respondent No. 1, and therefore, his intention to represent the
Gram Panchayat is motivated and mala fide. Learned counsel
further submitted that the Trial Court, vide its order dated
29.04.2023, while considering the application filed under Order I
Rule 10 of the CPC, declined to implead the petitioner as a party
to the proceedings. However, the Trial Court, in the interest of
justice, permitted the petitioner (in his capacity as Sarpanch) to
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 04:34:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44208] (6 of 9) [CW-18809/2025]
adduce evidence on behalf of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner
did not challenge the said order to the extent it refused
impleadment; therefore, that portion of the order has attained
finality, and the petitioner has consequently forfeited his right to
seek impleadment as a party at the appellate stage. Hence, the
petitioner cannot now claim to be impleaded as a respondent in
the appeal on the same facts and circumstances. It was further
contended that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner,
challenges the order dated 04.09.2025, which relates solely to the
question of impleadment. However, the petitioner has sought to
introduce extraneous issues, such as the validity of the Patta
issued in favour of Defendant-Respondent No. 1 and the enquiry
proceedings conducted in relation thereto, which are beyond the
scope of the present matter. The defendant- respondent No. 1's
counsel also submitted that the enquiry referred to by the
petitioner was conducted in the presence of the local MLA and the
present Sarpanch, both of whom allegedly acted in collusion. In
view of these irregularities, Defendant-Respondent No. 1 has
challenged the said enquiry report, and the operation of that
report has been stayed by this Hon'ble Court. Learned counsel
argued that, considering the grounds urged in the present writ
petition, it is apparent that the petitioner has filed this petition
with an ulterior motive, either to influence the outcome of the
other writ petition or to stall the proceedings of the pending
appeal. Therefore, he earnestly prayed that the present writ
petition, filed by the petitioner, be dismissed with exemplary costs.
To buttress his contentions, counsel has cited the judgment of the
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 04:34:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44208] (7 of 9) [CW-18809/2025]
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H. Anjanappa & Ors. vs.
A. Prabhakar & Ors. Reported in 2025 (1) DNJ (SC) 193.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully
gone through the material available on record.
Admittedly, Plaintiff No. 1- Om Prakash, instituted a suit for
permanent and mandatory injunction before the Court of the Civil
Judge, Nohar, against Defendant-Respondent No. 1 Amar Singh,
seeking a decree of injunction in respect of the common land
(Chowk) situated in front of the Government School. The present
petitioner was originally arrayed as Plaintiff No. 3 in his personal
capacity. However, upon contesting the Gram Panchayat elections,
he sought deletion of his name from the array of plaintiffs vide
order dated 25.02.2022. Subsequently, the Gram Panchayat
moved an application for impleadment as a party to the suit,
which was partly allowed by the learned Civil Judge vide order
dated 29.04.2023. The Gram Panchayat was permitted to be
impleaded as an intervener and directed to file an affidavit along
with relevant documents, which the petitioner duly submitted.
After hearing both sides, the learned Trial Court, vide judgment
dated 24.11.2023, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, Defendant-
Respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Court of the
Additional District Judge, Nohar, wherein the present petitioner
was also arrayed as a party. During the pendency of the appeal,
the petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC,
seeking permission to be impleaded as a party to the appellate
proceedings. The said application was opposed by Defendant-
Respondent No. 1 on the ground that the petitioner was not a
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 04:34:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44208] (8 of 9) [CW-18809/2025]
party to the original suit and hence could not be impleaded at the
appellate stage. Upon due consideration, the learned Additional
District Judge, Nohar, vide order dated 04.09.2025, dismissed the
petitioner's application. The Court below observed that the Trial
Court, by its earlier order dated 29.04.2023, had already declined
to implead the petitioner as a party, noting that his application
was filed belatedly after the completion of the defendant's
evidence and that no fresh cause of action arose from his claim. It
was further held that the petitioner neither represented the claim
in a representative capacity nor was his presence necessary for
effective adjudication, as his impleadment would only delay the
proceedings and enhance costs. Nonetheless, in the interest of
justice, the Trial Court had permitted him, as Sarpanch, to adduce
evidence on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, which he did as P.W/5.
The suit was thereafter decided on merits and decreed on
24.11.2023.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court concurs with
the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Court, which, in the
interest of justice, had permitted the petitioner, in his capacity as
Sarpanch, to adduce evidence on behalf of the Gram Panchayat,
though not as a party to the suit. The said permission was granted
solely to ensure that the interest of the public land (Chowk) was
adequately represented and that the Court was apprised of all
relevant facts. Accordingly, while the petitioner cannot claim the
status of a necessary or proper party to the proceedings, this
Court deems it appropriate, in the interest of fair adjudication, to
direct the Appellate Court to afford him an opportunity of hearing,
limited to the extent of representing the interest of the Gram
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 04:34:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44208] (9 of 9) [CW-18809/2025]
Panchayat and the public land in question. Such a course strikes a
balance between procedural propriety and substantive justice,
ensuring that the petitioner's evidence and submissions are
considered without disturbing the settled principle that only a
party to the original suit can be formally impleaded in appeal.
In light of the above, the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by
the learned Additional District Judge, Nohar, stands modified to
the limited extent that while the petitioner shall not be impleaded
as a party to the appeal, he shall be heard in his representative
capacity to assist the Court in determining issues concerning the
Gram Panchayat and public property. The cost imposed by the
Appellate Court is accordingly set aside.
Resultantly, the present S.B. Civil Writ Petition stands
disposed of in the above terms.
The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
184-/rashi/-
(Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 04:34:57 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
