Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gajendra vs Ramdev on 7 March, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2718/2022
Gajendra S/o Ramdev, Aged About 37 Years, By Caste Suthar,
Resident Of In Front Of Shanibaba Temple, Jhalamand, Jodhpur
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Ramdev S/o Gokulram, By Caste Suthar, Resident Of In
Front Of Shanibaba Temple, Jhalamand, Jodhpur (Raj.)
2. Santosh D/o Ramdev, W/o Badriram, By Caste Suthar,
Resident Of Hanumandhadi, Jhalamand, Jodhpur (Raj)
3. Shobha D/o Ramdev, W/o Hariram, By Caste Suthar,
Resident Of Khichiyo Ki Paldi, Kaliberi Ke Aage, Jodhpur
(Raj)
4. Veena D/o Ramdev, W/o Madanlal, Resident Of Ganga
Vihar, Jhalamand, Jodhpur
5. Pinki D/o Ramdev, Resident Of In Front Of Shanibaba
Temple, Jhalamand, Jodhpur (Raj.)
6. Vimla D/o Ramdev, W/o Madanlal, Resident Of Khichiyon
Ki Paldi, Kali Beri Ke Aage, Jodhpur.
7. Dhanraj S/o Jethram, By Caste Suthar, Resident Of
Piparli, Tehsil Luni District Jodhpur
8. Omprakash S/o Jetharam, By Caste Suthar, Resident Of
Piparli, Tehsil Luni District Jodhpur
9. Devaram S/o Jetharam, By Caste Suthar, Resident Of
Piparli, Tehsil Luni District Jodhpur
10. Smt. Rukma W/o Babulal, By Caste Suthar, Resident Of
Piparli, Tehsil Luni District Jodhpur
11. Shyam S/o Babulal, By Caste Suthar, Resident Of Piparli,
Tehsil Luni District Jodhpur
12. Ramesh S/o Babulal, By Caste Suthar, Resident Of Piparli,
Tehsil Luni District Jodhpur
13. Narpat S/o Babulal, By Caste Suthar, Resident Of Piparli,
Tehsil Luni District Jodhpur
14. Manglaram S/o Babulal, By Caste Suthar, Resident Of
Piparli, Tehsil Luni District Jodhpur
15. Papli D/o Mohini Devi, W/o Jogaram, By Caste Suthar,
(2 of 4) [CW-2718/2022]
Resident Of Piparli, Tehsil Luni District Jodhpur
16. Kamla D/o Mohini Devi, W/o Babulal, By Caste Suthar,
Resident Of Piparli, Tehsil Luni District Jodhpur
17. Smt. Suman Kanwar W/o Shri Satya Dev Singh Charan,
By Caste Charan, Resident Of 69, Khasra No. 58, Laxmi
Nagar, Banad Road, Nandadi, Jodhpur
18. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Tehsildar, Jodhpur
19. The Sub-Registrar, Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Moti Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
07/03/2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially
in a suit for partition filed by the petitioner, the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Jodhpur (for short 'the trial court') has passed preliminary
decree dated 30.08.2018, however later on, the said preliminary
decree was amended vide order dated 09.01.2019 and pursuant
to the said amendment, judgment and final decree dated
16.01.2019 was passed.
Being aggrieved with the same, the respondents - Ramdev
and Santosh have preferred two separate appeals before the
Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur (for short 'the RAA') and the
RAA while partly allowing those appeals has set aside the
amended preliminary decree dated 09.01.2019 as well as the final
order dated 17.01.2019 and remitted the matter to the trial court
to proceed further in accordance with the preliminary decree
dated 30.08.2018.
(3 of 4) [CW-2718/2022]
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
neither the petitioner nor respondents - Ramdev and Santosh
have challenged order of the RAA but Smt. Suman Kanwar,
respondent No.17 in this petition has preferred second appeals
before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue while
entertaining the said appeals has set aside the preliminary decree
dated 30.08.2018 passed by the trial court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that
the appeals preferred by respondent - Smt. Suman Kanwar were
not at all maintainable as prior to filing of the said appeals, no
leave to appeal was sought and granted by the Board of Revenue.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
the Board of Revenue without applying its mind on the facts and
law has set aside the preliminar y decree dated 30.08.2018 at the
instance of a stranger, who was not party to the suit. It is also
submitted that the Board of Revenue has illegally passed the
impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2
namely Ramdev and Santosh has opposed the writ petition and
argued that there is no illegality in passing of the order
03.02.2022 by the Board of Revenue.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of
the opinion that the matter requires consideration.
Hence, admit.
Issue notice to the respondent Nos.3 to 19.
Notices need not be issued to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 as
they are represented through their counsel.
In the meanwhile, effect and operation of the order dated
03.02.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer in Appeal
(4 of 4) [CW-2718/2022]
Nos.1941/2021/Jodhpur and 1942/2021/Jodhpur shall remain
stayed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
17-pratibha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
