Full Judgment
B.J. Shethna, J.
1. The petitioners have challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 31.1.1991, (Annex. 2) passed by the Collector, Sriganganagar exercising his powers as a Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short the 'Act'), whereby, he allowed the revision petition filed by the private respondent No. 3 and set aside the sanads No. 10346 dated 19.4; 1974 and 10700 dated 21.5.1975 and remanded the matter to the authority for fresh decision after extending an opportunity of hearing to all the parties. They have also challenged the order at Annex.'3 dated 7.11.1996 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, who has dismissed their revision petition filed against the impugned order at Annex. 2.
2. The impugned order at Annex. 2 is a remand order, whereby, the parties were given opportunity to lead their evidence and to prove their respective cases in their favour. Under the circumstances, when the revision petition was filed against that order, in my opinion the learned Divisional Commissioner has rightly dismissed the same. When the Divisional Commissioner refused to interfere with the remand order at Annex. 2 then this Court will not interfere with such orders in its supervisionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as there is no jurisdictional error committed by the Collector, Sriganganagar or the Divisional Commissioner while passing the impugned orders at Annexs. 2 and 3 respectively.
3. This petition is labelled as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but strictly speaking this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the scope of which is very narrow and limited as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim reported in : [1984]1SCR211 .
4. This petition is also required to be dismissed on one more ground namely that State of Rajasthan is not joined as a party respondent in this petition. It is interesting to note that at page 10 in ground (i) of this petition it was submitted that the impugned order at Annexs. 2 and 3 are without jurisdiction because the same have been passed without impleading the State of Rajasthan as party. If that is so, then all the more the petitioners were required to join State of Rajasthan as party respondent. It is well settled law that writ of certiorari cannot be issued unless and until the State Govt. is party to the proceedings.
5. At this stage, it must be stated that a request was made by the learned Counsel Shri Purohit for the petitioner to give an opportunity to join the State Govt. as party respondent, but it is too late in a day. In my opinion, the petitioner should have joined the State of Rajasthan at the earliest point of time.
6. In view of the above discussion, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this petition is dismissed on two grounds namely (i) the impugned orders at Annexs. 2 and 3 are just and legal order and (ii) in absence of State of Rajasthan as party to the proceedings, no writ can be issued.
7. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Stay granted earlier stands vacated.
8. This is an old matter where the matter is remanded to the authority by the impugned order at Annex. 2, therefore, it is hoped and trusted that authority shall decide the matter afresh after extending an opportunity of hearing to all the parties as early as possible preferably within six months from the receipt of this order.