Bhanwar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 8323 Raj

(1 of 3) [CW-14332/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14332/2021

1. Bhanwar Singh S/o Ganga Singh, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Awai, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

2. Sawroop Singh S/o Ganga Singh, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Awai, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

3. Jaswant Singh S/o Ganga Singh, Aged About 43 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Awai, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

4. Ummed Singh S/o Ganga Singh, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Awai, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

5. Meer Kanwar W/o Ganga Singh, Aged About 70 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Awai, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

6. Sawai Singh S/o Budh Singh, Aged About 39 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Awai, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

----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. 1 (Pokran), District Jaisalmer.

6. Megh Singh S/o Madho Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Awai, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Sharwan Singh Nirban
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. DK Joshi



                                        (2 of 3)                [CW-14332/2021]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

27/06/2022

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners

with the following prayers:-

(i) The respondents may be directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in dispute till appeal pending before learned Revenue Board is finally decided and,

(ii) That during the pendency of writ any adverse order is passed by the respondents against petitioners then same may kindly be treated on record and be quashed and set aside and

(iii) The Colonisation Tehsildar, Nachana may be directed not to proceed for dispossessing petitioners from their land till appeal is decided finally by the Revenue Board and quash and set aside Mutation cancel by colonization Tehsildar Nachana date 30.06.2021 (Annex. 6), and allow petitioners to carry out their agriculture work of crops growing.

At the very outset it is submitted that the short controversy

involved in the present is that the petitioner preferred a suit

before Deputy Commissioner Colonization, Nachana which was

decided vide order dated 15.06.2016. The State Government

aggrieved by the order dated 15.06.2016 preferred an appeal

before the Additional Commissioner and Revenue Appellate Officer,

Jaisalmer. The appeal preferred by the State was allowed vide

order dated 10.02.2021 setting aside the order passed by the

Deputy Commissioner on 15.06.2016. The petitioner assailed the

validity of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and

Revenue Appellate Officer, Jaisalmer before the Revenue Board,

Ajmer by way of filing an appeal. The said appeal is pending

consideration before the Board of Revenue along with the stay

(3 of 3) [CW-14332/2021]

application, however, the matter could not be heard as the record

called for by the Revenue Board, Ajmer has not reached.

In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that since the matter is not being heard by the Revenue

Board, therefore, the State Government may be restrained from

changing the entries in the revenue records.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have

gone through the orders passed by the authorities below.

The appeal along with the stay application is pending

consideration before the Board of Revenue but hearing of the case

is not taking place as the record has not been received. Therefore,

on this ground, the writ petition has been filed seeking an interim

direction against the State. In the opinion of this Court, the writ

petition for interim direction cannot be entertained by this Court in

these circumstances, however, a prayer should be made before

the Board of Revenue for seeking the interim direction against the

State Government.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a

direction to the Board of Revenue to expedite the hearing of the

petitioners' case on the stay application at the earliest

convenience.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

1-payal/kashish-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)