Gajara Kanwar vs Mahindra Renewable Private Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 14277 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10511/2022

Gajara Kanwar W/o Late Sh. Mangal Singh, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of Village Bhivji Ka Gao, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur

----Petitioner Versus

1. Mahindra Renewable Private Ltd., Registered Office At 7Th Floor Raheja Platinum Sag Baug Road Off. Amdheri Kurla Road, Marol Andheri East, Mumbai 400059

2. Kana Ram S/o Sh. Daya Ram, Resident Of Khichan, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur

3. Padam Singh S/o Madho Singh, Resident Of Bhivji Ka Gao, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur

4. Roop Singh S/o Kishan Singh, Resident Of Bhivji Ka Gao, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur

5. Bhupendra Singh S/o Sahdev Singh, Resident Of Bikaner.

6. Khetu Kanwar W/o Deep Singh, Resident Of Bhivji Ka Gao, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur

7. Om Singh S/o Deep Singh, Resident Of Bhivji Ka Gao, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur

8. Chhelu Singh S/o Deep Singh, Resident Of Bhivji Ka Gao, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur

9. Sumer Singh S/o Punjraj Singh, Resident Of Bhivji Ka Gao, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur

10. Dhapu Kanwar W/o Narpat Singh, Resident Of Bhivji Ka Gao, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur

11. Ravi Singh S/o Narpat Singh, Resident Of Bhivji Ka Gao, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur

12. Kalu Singh S/o Narpat Singh, Resident Of Bhivji Ka Gao, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur

13. Maya D/o Narpat Singh, Resident Of Bhivji Ka Gao, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur

14. Sheel Kanwar W/o Gopal Singh, Resident Of Ranisar, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur

15. Rishiraj Singh S/o Gopal Singh, Resident Of Ranisar, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur

(2 of 3) [CW-10511/2022]

16. Mohini W/o Bhura Ram, Resident Of Village Saguri, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur

17. Tulchhi W/o Jaggu Ram, Resident Of Village Saguri, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur

18. Tej Singh S/o Madho Singh, Resident Of Bhivji Ka Gao, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur

19. Chandu Kanwar W/o Ugam Singh, Resident Of Bhivji Ka Gao, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur

20. Tila Ram S/o Lichhaman Ram, Resident Of Village Akhadhana, Tehsil Bapp, District Jodhpur.

21. Jodha Ram S/o Lichhaman Ram, Resident Of Village Akhadhana, Tehsil Bapp, District Jodhpur.

22. Sultan S/o Nathu Ram, Resident Of Village Akhadhana, Tehsil Bapp, District Jodhpur.

23. Heera Ram S/o Ridaram, Resident Of Village Akhadhana, Tehsil Bapp, District Jodhpur.

24. Kirta Ram S/o Lichhman Ram, Resident Of Village Akhadhana, Tehsil Bapp, District Jodhpur.

25. Debu Kanwar W/o Bhanwar Singh, Resident Of Bhivji Ka Gao, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur

26. Swaroop Singh S/o Lichhaman Singh, Resident Of Bhivji Ka Gao, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur

27. Sher Singh S/o Hamir Singh, Resident Of Bhivji Ka Gao, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur

28. Bagh Singh S/o Agar Singh, Resident Of Bhivji Ka Gao, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur

29. Padam Singh S/o Arjun Singh, Resident Of Bhivji Ka Gao, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur

30. Bhom Singh S/o Arjun Singh, Resident Of Bhivji Ka Gao, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur

31. Aasu Kanar W/o Arjun Singh, Resident Of Bhivji Ka Gao, Tehsil Baap, District Jodhpur

32. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Tehsildar, Baap, District Jodhpur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. KR Meghwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Poonam Chand Purohit

(3 of 3) [CW-10511/2022]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Judgment / Order 05/12/2022

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved

with the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Revenue

Appellate Authority, Jodhpur and the Sub Divisional Officer, Baap

whereby, the prayer of the petitioner for granting interim

temporary injunction have been rejected.

It appears that the petitioner has filed a suit under Sections

88, 53, 188 and 92A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act read with

Section 131 and 136 of the Land Revenue Act before the SDO,

Baap against the respondents. In the said suit, the petitioner has

also filed an application under Section 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy

Act and in the said application, the petitioner has prayed for grant

of interim temporary injunction in her favour, which has been

refused by the SDO refused and later on, the RAA as well as BOR,

Ajmer have also refused the same.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going

through the material available on record, I do not find any

illegality in the impugned orders. Hence, this writ petition is

dismissed.

However, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the SDO,

Baap to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner

along with her revenue suit under Section 212 of the Rajasthan

Tenancy Act expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months

from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Ordered accordingly.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J Surabhii/207-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)