Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dharmo Devi vs Kheema Ram (2025:Rj-Jd:5388) on 28 January, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:5388]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21695/2024
Dharmo Devi W/o Late Ranchhor Ram, Aged About 62 Years,
Village Ladunagar Jethantari, Tehsil Samdari, District Balotra
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Kheema Ram S/o Moda Ram, Village Ladunagar
Jethantari, Tehsil Samdari, District Balotra (Rajasthan).
2. Kesa Ram S/o Ranchhor Ram,
3. Kishana Ram S/o Ranchhor Ram,
4. Ganga Devi W/o Ranchhor Ram,
5. Joga Ram S/o Ranchhor Ram,
All by caste Kalabi Choudhary, Resident of Village
Ladunagar Jethantari, Tehsil Samdari, District Balotra
(Rajasthan).
6. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Samdari, District
Balotra (Rajasthan).
7. Sub Divisional Officer, Siwana,district-Balotra (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Govind Suthar and
Mr. Sukha Dev
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
28/01/2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed with the following
prayers : -
"(A) The impugned judgments dated 10.12.2024
(Ann.9) passed by learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer
in revision 8707/2024 and order dated 18.11.2024
(Ann.5) passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Siwana
[2025:RJ-JD:5388] (2 of 3) [CW-21695/2024]
dismissing the application of re-inspection may kindly
be quashed and set aside.
(B) The Sub Divisional Officer, Siwana may kindly be
directed to take the fresh site report from the
Tehsildar in presence of the petitioner along with the
photographs of existed way of Khasra No.909/490 to
approaching the field of respondent Kheema Ram and
allowed the application dated 30.09.2024 filed by
petitioner".
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the site
inspection of the land in question has been made by the
concerned Patwari and Tehsildar in the absence of the petitioner
and, therefore, she was deprived from reflecting the correct
factual aspect before the Inspecting Team. He further submits that
without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, her
right to file reply has also been closed by the concerned authority.
He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the
concerned authority may be directed to reinspect the site in
presence of the petitioner and they may also be directed to permit
the petitioner to file reply.
Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to
controvert the fact that the site in question was inspected in the
absence of the petitioner. Learned counsel has also not objected
the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner to grant one
more opportunity to the petitioner to file reply.
In view of the submissions made before this Court, the
present writ petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed.
The order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue and
the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer,
Siwana are quashed and set aside and the respondent No.6 -
[2025:RJ-JD:5388] (3 of 3) [CW-21695/2024]
Tehsildar Samadari is directed to reinspect the site in question in
presence of both the parties within a period of four weeks from
today and thereafter prepare the new site inspection report to be
submitted before the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Siwana.
It is also ordered that the respondent No. 7 - the Sub
Divisional Officer, Siwana shall extend one more opportunity of
filing reply to the petitioner. If the same is not filed within a period
of four weeks from today, the right to file reply of the petitioner
shall be closed.
The stay application and other pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
395-SanjayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
