Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Shersingh (2024:Rj-Jd:36081) on 2 September, 2024
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2024:RJ-JD:36081]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4131/2024
State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar (Revenue) Tibbi, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Shersingh S/o Teksingh, Resident Of Silwala Khurd Tehsil
Tibbi District Hanumangarh.
2. Jasmel Kaur W/o Teksingh, Resident Of Silwala Khurd
Tehsil Tibbi District Hanumangarh.
3. Lrs Of Gurdayal Singh S/o Vishansingh, Resident Of
Silwala Khurd Tehsil Tibbi District Hanumangarh.
4. Tejkaur W/o Gurdayal Singh, Resident Of Silwala Khurd
Tehsil Tibbi District Hanumangarh.
5. Sukhdeo Singh S/o Gurdayal Singh, Resident Of Silwala
Khurd Tehsil Tibbi District Hanumangarh.
6. Veersingh S/o Gurdayal, Resident Of Silwala Khurd Tehsil
Tibbi District Hanumangarh.
7. Om Prakash S/o Mukh Ram, Resident Of Dhani 6 S.l.w.
Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
8. Suresh Kumar S/o Mukh Ram, Resident Of Dhani 6 S.l.w.
Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
9. Lrs Of Jaymat S/o Ram Pratap, Through -
10. Bhagwant S/o Jaymal, Resident Of Dhani 6 S.l.w. Tehsil
Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
11. Anand Prakash S/o Jaymal, Resident Of Dhani 6 S.l.w.
Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
12. Ajana Devi D/o Jaymal W/o Rakha Ram Sharan, Resident
Of Laduwala Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar.
13. Sumita Devi D/o Jaymal W/o Dharmveer Punia, Resident
Of Teen Puli Ke Pass Sri Ganganagar.
14. Munni Devi D/o Jaymal W/o Hari Singh Dhaka, Resident
Of Bahrwala Tehsil Elnabad, District Sirsa (Hariyana).
15. Satparala D/o Jaymal W/o Mahendra Singh Rewal,
Resident Of Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
16. Lrs Of Vinod Kumar D/o Jaymal, Resident Of Dhani 6
S.l.w. Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
[2024:RJ-JD:36081] (2 of 3) [CW-4131/2024]
17. Shakuntala D/o Vinod Kumar, Resident Of Dhani 6 S.l.w.
Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
18. Rjesh S/o Vinod Kumar, Resident Of Dhani 6 S.l.w. Tehsil
Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
19. Gagandeep D/o Vinod Kumar, Resident Of Dhani 6 S.l.w.
Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
20. Sunita D/o Vinod Kumar W/o Jaisingh Gora, Resident Of
Elnabad, District Sirsa (Hariyana).
21. Raghuveersingh S/o Ram Pratap, Resident Of Silwala
Khurd Tehsil Tibbi District Hanumangarh.
22. Isharsingh S/o Jagirsingh, Resident Of Silwala Khurd
Tehsil Tibbi District Hanumangarh.
23. Gurmohansingh S/o Jagir, Resident Of Silwala Khurd
Tehsil Tibbi District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal, Government
Counsel with Mr. Govinlal Suthar, Dy.
Government Counsel
For Respondent(s) : -
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
02/09/2024
1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner-State has
challenged the order of the Board of Revenue, which was passed
way-back on 28.01.2014.
2. So called explanation of the delay given by the State as
contained in para No.11 of this writ petition is reproduced herein
extenso:-
"That learned District Collector
Hanumangarh on 14.06.2022 ordered to
file writ petition against the judgment and
in this regards and appointed Officer-In-
[2024:RJ-JD:36081] (3 of 3) [CW-4131/2024]
Charge. Thereafter as per instructions of
Government Counsel on 02.02.2024 and
after drafting to writ petition is being filed.
Hence delay in filing the writ petition is
unintentional."
3. It is to be noted that State has got up from slumber after
eight years of passing the order (28.01.2014) and the District
Collector, Hanumangarh decided to prefer a writ petition on
14.06.2022. And even thereafter, the State has taken about two
years' time to file the present writ petition.
4. On perusal of the order impugned and the record, this Court
is of the view that no substantial prejudice has been caused to the
State and the dispute was interse between the parties.
5. The petition is highly belated on the one hand and is
misconceived on the other. If the suit has been disposed of on the
basis of compromise and decree has been passed in terms thereof,
the State cannot challenge the same on the ground of purported
loss of revenue - stamp duty or registration charges.
6. The approach of the State in filing the present writ petition
in such a casual manner and that too at such a belated stage
deserves to be deprecated.
7. The present writ petition so also stay application is
dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
19-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
