Nabhi Khan vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 17923 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12043/2021

1. Nabhi Khan S/o Bhaghu Khan, Aged About 71 Years, By Caste Mualman, R/o Village Shekho Ka Tala, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer.

2. Latib Khan S/o Nabhi Khan, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Mualman, R/o Village Shekho Ka Tala, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer.

3. Barkat Khan S/o Nabhi Khan, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Mualman, R/o Village Shekho Ka Tala, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner, Colonization Department, Bikaner.

2. The Board Of Revenue, Ajmer.

3. Additional Commissioner, Colonization And Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaisalmer.

4. Assistant Collector Cum Deputy Commissioner, Colonization, Ignp, Nachana, District Jaisalmer.

5. The Tehsildar, Colonization Nachana No. 2, District Jaisalmer.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. SS Nirban
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Dinesh Joshi



                    JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                    Order

29/11/2021

1. By way of present writ petition petitioners have prayed that

till disposal of the petitioner's appeal before the Board of

Revenue, the respondents may be directed not to dispossess the

petitioners from the land in dispute.

(2 of 2) [CW-12043/2021]

2. The facts appertain are that the trial Court vide its judgment

and decree dated 17.10.2016 declared the petitioners to be

Khatedar of 207 Bigha 7 Biswa land against which the State

preferred an appeal and vide order dated 12.08.2021, the order

passed by the trial Court has been set aside.

3. The petitioners have preferred an appeal against the order of

the appellate authority being appeal No.3937/2021 in which the

Board of Revenue has called for record.

4. Mr. Nirban, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

till the appeal is decided, the respondents be restrained from

dispossessing the petitioners from the land in dispute.

5. Admittedly, petitioners' appeal is pending consideration

before the Board of Revenue.

6. This being the position, the present writ petition is

misconceived and premature.

7. Petitioners may move appropriate application including stay

application before the Board of Revenue in its pending appeal.

8. Writ petition is dismissed.

9. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 26-Amar/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)