Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Uka Ram vs Board Of Revenue For Rajasthan, ... on 22 April, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1691/2022
1. Uka Ram S/o Mansha, Aged About 56 Years,
2. Lekha S/o Mansha, Aged About 51 Years,
Both by Caste Rajpurohit, R/o Zhangra Bera Majiwala,
Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Board Of Revenue For Rajasthan, Ajmer, Ajmer (Raj.).
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Pachpadra,
District Barmer (Raj.).
3. Pitha @ Prathvi Singh S/o Durga @ Durgh Singh, By
Caste Rajpurohit, R/o Mannawas, Majiwalavera, Zhongra,
Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer (Raj.).
4. Jasraj S/o Govind Singh, By Caste Rajpurohit, R/o
Mannawas, Majiwalavera, Zhongra, Tehsil Pachpadra,
District Barmer (Raj.).
5. Govind Singh S/o Nema Ji, By Caste Rajpurohit, R/o
Mannawas, Majiwalavera, Zhongra, Tehsil Pachpadra,
District Barmer (Raj.).
6. Dharmendra S/o Nema Ji, By Caste Rajpurohit, R/o
Mannawas, Majiwalavera, Zhongra, Tehsil Pachpadra,
District Barmer (Raj.).
7. Smt. Panchi Devi W/o Shankar Lal, B/c Rajpurohit, R/o
Jasol, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer
8. Bhanwar Singh S/o Ajeeta, B/c Rajpurohit, R/o
Jhangrabera, Majiwali, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer
9. Khet Singh S/o Ajeeta, B/c Rajpurohit, R/o Jhangrabera,
Majiwali, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer
10. Santosh Kanwar W/o Dharmendra Singh, B/c Rajpurohit,
R/o Jasol, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer (Raj.)
11. Dheeraj Singh S/o Dharmendra Singh, Through Natural
Mother And Guardian Respondent No.10 Santosh Kanwar
B/c Rajpurohit, R/o Jasol, Tehsil Pachpadra, District
Barmer (Raj.)
12. Karan Singh S/o Dharmendra Singh, Through Natural
Mother And Guardian Respondent No.10 Santosh Kanwar
B/c Rajpurohit, R/o Jasol, Tehsil Pachpadra, District
Barmer (Raj.)
13. Divya D/o Dharmendra Singh, Through Natural Mother
And Guardian Respondent No.10 Santosh Kanwar B/c
Rajpurohit, R/o Jasol, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer
(Raj.)
14. Harish Singh S/o Govardhan Singh, B/c Rajpurohit, R/o
Jasol, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer (Raj.)
(2 of 3) [CW-1691/2022]
15. Deepak Singh S/o Govardhan Singh, B/c Rajpurohit, R/o
Jasol, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer (Raj.)
16. Ganpat Singh S/o Govardhan Singh, B/c Rajpurohit, R/o
Jasol, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer (Raj.)
17. Kamlesh Singh S/o Govardhan Singh, B/c Rajpurohit, R/o
Jasol, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer (Raj.)
18. Shiv Prakash S/o Mangi Lal, B/c Soni, Resident Of
Balotra, District Barmer
19. Jagdish S/o Vijay Kumar, B/c Soni, Resident Of Balotra,
District Barmer
20. Jagdish S/o Babu Lal, B/c Kumhar, R/o Samdari Road,
Balotra, District Barmer
21. Mohan Singh S/o Jetha, B/c Purohit, R/o Jasol, Tehsil
Pachpadra, District Barmer (Raj.)
22. Sujan Singh S/o Jetha, B/c Purohit, R/o Jasol, Tehsil
Pachpadra, District Barmer (Raj.)
23. Guman Singh S/o Jetha, B/c Purohit, R/o Jasol, Tehsil
Pachpadra, District Barmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumer Singh Rathore
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
22/04/2022
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have
assailed the order Annex.-6, passed by the Division Bench of
Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as "the Board"), vide
which the application seeking impleadment filed by the respondent
No.2 to 6 has been allowed.
2. Challenging the order aforesaid, Mr. Sumer Singh Rathore,
learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the applicants
(respondent No. 2 to 6) were erstwhile owners of the land in
question, who admittedly sold the land to the persons who are
already parties in the proceedings as respondent No.4 to 12 as
(3 of 3) [CW-1691/2022]
shown in the cause title of the revision petition filed before the
Board.
3. Learned counsel argued that the applicants-respondent No.2
to 6 had no say in revision petition pending before the Board and
their impleadment was unwarranted, yet the Board has impleaded
them without assigning any reason.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and upon
perusal of the order impugned passed by the Board, though this
Court finds that the Board was not justified in impleading the
respondent No.2 to 6 as party respondents as they had admittedly
transferred their rights in the subject property to the purchaser,
who are already party in the suit proceedings.
6. Be that as it may.
7. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioners and there is
no failure of justice. This Court, therefore, does not find it a fit
case warranting intereference of this Court under Article 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India in light of the judgment of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court of India in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty
& Ors. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) SCC
329 and Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors., reported
in 2003(6) SCC 675.
8. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
9. The Stay Petition also stands dismissed accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
93-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
