Bona Fide Purchaser with Direct Interest is a Necessary Party in Revenue Revision Proceedings

The petitioners purchased portions of land (Khasra No. 78/4, Ramanujganj) via a registered sale deed dated 25.06.2012, following a permission order by the Additional Commissioner

Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 challenged certain revenue proceedings related to this land, leading to a revision petition before the Secretary, Revenue Department (Respondent No. 1)

The petitioners, despite being registered owners, were not impleaded in these proceedings

Upon learning of the pending revision, the petitioners filed applications for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC

Respondent No. 1 rejected these applications via order dated 09.10.2024, prompting the present writ petitions

1. Whether the petitioners, as subsequent purchasers of the disputed land, are necessary and proper parties to the revision proceedings under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC

2. Whether the rejection of the impleadment application by the Revenue Authority violated the principles of natural justice

Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which governs the impleadment of necessary and proper parties whose presence is essential for the effective adjudication of a dispute

The constitutional and administrative law principle of Audi Alteram Partem (Natural Justice), which dictates that no person should be condemned or have their property rights affected without a fair opportunity to be heard

The High Court observed that the petitioners were bona fide purchasers under a registered sale deed and were previously parties to proceedings where permission for land sale was granted

Crucially, the court noted that Respondent No. 2 was aware of the petitioners' interests, evidenced by the fact that he had impleaded them in a separate revision before the Board of Revenue

The court found that Respondent No. 2 failed to implead them in the present revision with the apparent intent of obtaining an order behind their backs, thus not approaching the authority with "clean hands"

The court reasoned that since the petitioners' rights would be directly and adversely affected by the outcome of the revision, their presence is essential for a complete and effective adjudication

The court dismissed the respondent's argument regarding procedural delay, holding that administrative efficiency cannot outweigh the fundamental requirement of a fair hearing

It held that the petitioners are necessary parties to the proceedings

The Court directed Respondent No. 1 to implead the petitioners as parties in the pending revision and to decide the matter afresh after providing all parties a due opportunity of hearing

No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case