Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ballu Khan vs Badri Prasad (2024:Rj-Jd:9659) on 26 February, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:9659]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2711/2024
1. Ballu Khan S/o Kammu Khan, Aged About 65 Years, R/o.
3 Mld-B, Tehsil Gharsana District Sri Ganganagar.
2. Karina D/o Ali Khan, Aged About 39 Years, R/o.3 Mld-B,
Tehsil Gharsana District Sri Ganganagar.
3. Ajima Bano W/o Ali Khan, Aged About 36 Years, R/o.3
Mld-B, Tehsil Gharsana District Sri Ganganagar.
4. Umrava W/o Ali Khan, Aged About 70 Years, R/o.3 Mld-B,
Tehsil Gharsana District Sri Ganganagar.
5. Gulam Nabi S/o Ali Khan, Aged About 37 Years, R/o.3
Mld-B, Tehsil Gharsana District Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Badri Prasad S/o Sohan Lal, 3 Mld-B, Tehsil Gharsana
District Sri Ganganagar.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar (Revenue),
Gharsana District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order 26/02/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs :-
"(i) The impugned judgment dated 22.06.2023 (Ann.3) passed by learned Sub Divisional Officer, Gharsana, judgment dated 25.10.2023 (Ann.6) passed by learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar may kindly be quashed and set aside
(ii) The learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer may kindly be directed to decide the stay application during pendency of the stay application"(Downloaded on 26/02/2024 at 08:43:34 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9659] (2 of 3) [CW-2711/2024]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Board of Revenue has admitted the revision petition filed by the petitioners vide its order dated 09.11.2023, however, no order has been passed on the stay application preferred along with the revision petition. Learned counsel submits that since the revision petition filed by the petitioners is admitted, therefore, the Board of Revenue should have decided or passed some orders on the stay application so filed by the petitioners. He further submits that till date, the matter is not heard by the Board of Revenue on the stay application. He, therefore, prays that the Board of Revenue may be directed to decide the revision petition preferred by the petitioners itself and if the same is not possible then at least some order should be passed while deciding the pending stay application of the petitioners.
4. Considering the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Board of Revenue to decide the revision petition of the petitioners at the earliest and if that is not possible then at least the pending stay application of the petitioners shall be considered and decided at the earliest preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order strictly in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
5. At this state, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the subject piece of land which is ordered to be converted as a way by the Revenue Authorities, the petitioners are having a standing crop of mustard(sarso) and, therefore, till the stay (Downloaded on 26/02/2024 at 08:43:34 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:9659] (3 of 3) [CW-2711/2024] application is heard and decided, the standing crop of the petitioners may be protected.
6. In view of the submissions made before this Court, it is ordered that the standing crop of the petitioners in the subject piece of land shall not be disturbed till the matter is heard by the Board of Revenue on the stay application.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 32-SanjayS/-
(Downloaded on 26/02/2024 at 08:43:34 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)