Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sarif Shah vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:50101) on 19 November, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:50101]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22661/2025
1. Sarif Shah S/o Ishak Shah, aged about 18 years,
Resident of Imam Nagar Tehsil Phalasund District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
2. Rasheed Khan S/o Noore Khan, aged about 20 years,
Resident of Imam Nagar Tehsil Phalasund District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
3. Insaf Shah S/o Isaq Shah, aged about 30 years, Resident
of Imam Nagar Tehsil Phalasund District Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan.
4. Samsu Shah S/o Isaq Shah, aged about 20 years,
Resident of Imam Nagar Tehsil Phalasund District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
5. Anwar Khan S/o Surab Khan, aged about 36 years,
Resident of Imam Nagar Tehsil Phalasund District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
6. Chhote Khan S/o Sorab Khan, aged about 45 years,
Resident of Imam Nagar Tehsil Phalasund District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
7. Ilyas Shah S/o Ramzan Shah, aged about 40 years,
Resident of Imam Nagar Tehsil Phalasund District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
8. Iqbal Shah S/o Ramzan Shah, aged about 35 years,
Resident of Imam Nagar Tehsil Phalasund District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
9. Saddam Shah S/o Ramzan Shah, aged about 25 years,
Resident of Imam Nagar Tehsil Phalasund District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
10. Aqub Shah S/o Ramzan Shah, aged about 19 years,
Resident of Imam Nagar Tehsil Phalasund District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
11. Khevre Khan S/o Minde Khan, aged about 45 years,
Resident of Imam Nagar Tehsil Phalasund District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
12. Nizam Khan S/o Minde Khan, aged about 35 years,
Resident of Imam Nagar Tehsil Phalasund District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 06:09:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 09:41:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50101] (2 of 9) [CW-22661/2025]
13. Safi Khan S/o Minde Khan, aged about 50 years, Resident
of Imam Nagar Tehsil Phalasund District Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan.
14. Asak Khan S/o Minde Khan, aged about 35 years,
Resident of Imam Nagar Tehsil Phalasund District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
15. Ali Khan S/o Mehrdin Khan, aged about 55 years,
Resident of Imam Nagar Tehsil Phalasund District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
16. Rame Khan S/o Hameed Khan, aged about 65 years,
Resident of Imam Nagar Tehsil Phalasund District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
17. Dale Khan S/o Hameed Khan, aged about 70 years,
Resident of Imam Nagar Tehsil Phalasund District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
18. Hanif Khan S/o Hamid Khan, aged about 62 years,
Resident of Imam Nagar Tehsil Phalasund District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
19. Salim S/o Noor Khan, aged about 20 years, Resident of
Imam Nagar Tehsil Phalasund District Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary.
2. Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Through Registrar.
3. P.O. Revenue Appellate Authority, Barmer.
4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhaniyana, Jaisalmer.
5. Karim Khan S/o Phuse Khan, Resident of Imamnagar
Tehsil Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
6. Sher Mohammad S/o Ilmdwin, Resident of Imamnagar
Tehsil Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
7. Khiro W/o Bachu Khan, Resident of Imamnagar Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
8. Nasirddin S/o Bachchu Khan, Resident of Imamnagar
Tehsil Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
9. Pathan Khan S/o Bachchu Khan, Resident of Imamnagar
Tehsil Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 06:09:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 09:41:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50101] (3 of 9) [CW-22661/2025]
10. Piroj Khan S/o Bachchu Khan, Resident of Imamnagar
Tehsil Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
11. Rehmina D/o Janu Khan, Resident of Imamnagar Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
12. Roshan S/o Janu Khan, Resident of Imamnagar Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
13. Samada W/o Janu Khan, Resident of Imamnagar Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
14. Ialmo W/o Gulab Khan, Resident of Imamnagar Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
15. Jenny W/o Sukardin, Resident of Imamnagar Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
16. Bachchi W/o Rahamtullah, Resident of Imamnagar Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
17. Gulab Khan S/o Nuraddin, Resident of Imamnagar Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
18. Jaini W/o Sukardin, Resident of Imamnagar Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
19. Barkat Khan S/o Sakur Khan, Resident of Imamnagar
Tehsil Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
20. Ini D/o Sakur Khan, Resident of Imamnagar Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
21. Naini D/o Sakur Khan, Resident of Imamnagar Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
22. Ise Khan D/o Sakur Khan, Resident of Imamnagar Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
23. Sahbudin S/o Sakur Khan, Resident of Imamnagar Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
24. Husi D/o Sakur Khan, Resident of Imamnagar Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
25. Jamaldin S/o Sakur Khan, Resident of Imamnagar Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
26. Najo S/o Sakur Khan, Resident of Imamnagar Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
27. Khame Khan S/o Ise Khan, Resident of Mekuba Tehsil
Phalsund District Jaisalmer.
28. Matu W/o Khane Khan, Resident of Mekuba Tehsil
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 06:09:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 09:41:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50101] (4 of 9) [CW-22661/2025]
Phalsund District Jaisalmer.
29. Khairo W/o Ramzan Shah, Resident of Bandheva Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
30. Razzam Shah S/o Ramzan Shah, Resident of Bandheva
Tehsil Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
31. Shairushah S/o Ramzan Shah, Resident of Bandheva
Tehsil Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
32. Mumtaz D/o Ramzan Shah, Resident of Bandheva Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
33. Amina W/o Isaaq Shah, Resident of Bandheva Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
34. Aruna D/o Isaaq Shah, Resident of Bandheva Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
35. Harun Shah S/o Saidad Khan, Resident of Bandheva
Tehsil Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
36. Khairo D/o Shahzad Khan, Resident of Bandheva Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
37. Saido D/o Surabshah, Resident of Bandheva Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
38. Sikandar Shah S/o Shahzad Khan, Resident of Bandheva
Tehsil Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
39. Ajudevi W/o Kishore Singh, Resident of Rahdo Ki Dhani,
Jogasar, Tehsil Baytu, District Balotra.
40. Jhimo W/o Kesaram Jat, Resident of Rajbera Tehsil Shiv
District Barmer.
41. Omprakash S/o Sona Ram Jat, Resident of Officer Colony
Tehsil And District Barmer.
42. Sale Mohammad S/o Mehrdin Khan, Resident of
Imamnagar Tehsil Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
43. Sogat Khan S/o Meherdin Khan, Resident of Imamnagar
Tehsil Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
44. Aashyo W/o Noore Khan, Resident of Imamnagar Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
45. Sihandar S/o Noore Khan, Resident of Imamnagar Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
46. Munna D/o Noore Khan, Resident of Imamnagar Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 06:09:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 09:41:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50101] (5 of 9) [CW-22661/2025]
47. Rustam D/o Noore Khan, Resident of Imamnagar Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
48. Zubeida D/o Noore Khan, Resident of Imamnagar Tehsil
Phalasund District Jaisalmer.
49. Kishan Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, Resident of Jograjgarh,
Tehsil Phalsund, District Jaisalmer.
50. Branch Manager, State Bank Of India Branch Rajamathai.
51. Branch Manager, State Bank Of India Branch Falsundad.
52. Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank Branch Undu.
53. Rajasthan Government Through Tehsildar Phalasund,
District Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubham Ojha.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Kotwani.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
19/11/2025
1. The petitioners, by invoking the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court through the instant petition, have
assailed the validity of the order dated 13.10.2025 (Annex.P/1)
passed by the learned SDO/Assistant Collector, sanctioning a new
path traversing the petitioners' Khatedari land. The petitioners
have further impugned the orders dated 30.10.2025 (Annex.P/2)
and 14.11.2025 (Annex.P/3), rendered by the learned Revenue
Appellate Authority and the esteemed Board of Revenue,
respectively, insofar as these orders have not afforded ad-interim
protection to the petitioners, though their application for interim
stay remains pending consideration.
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 06:09:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50101] (6 of 9) [CW-22661/2025]
2. Succinctly stated, the facts germane for disposal of this writ
petition are that the petitioners are the Khatedars and Co-sharers
of residential and agricultural lands of the land comprising of
Khasra Nos.633/363, 365/1, and 276, amongst others, situated in
village Imam Nagar, Tehsil Phalsund, District Jaisalmer.
Respondent No.5 set the law in motion by filing a revenue suit
before the court of the SDO, seeking to carve out an 18-feet wide
thoroughfare across the petitioners' Khatedari land for access to
his adjacent parcel described in Khasra No.363, under Section
251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('Act of 1955'), despite
the existence of alternative routes. The SDO decreed the suit in
favour of respondent No.5 by order dated 13.10.2025
(Annex.P/1), thereby directing that a new 18-feet wide path be
sanctioned across the petitioners' land.
3. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2025, the petitioners
preferred an appeal under Section 225 of the Act of 1955 before
the Revenue Appellate Authority, Barmer; however, vide order
dated 30.10.2025 (Annex.P/2), the Authority declined to grant an
ad-interim order for maintenance of status quo concerning the
petitioners' dwelling house and agricultural land.
4. The petitioners, undeterred, sought revision before the Board
of Revenue, which, by its order dated 14.11.2025 (Annex.P/3),
also refrained from extending any interim protection to the
petitioners.
5. Aggrieved by the aforementioned orders dated 30.10.2025
(Annex.P/2) and 14.11.2025 (Annex.P/3), the petitioners have
preferred the present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court.
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 06:09:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50101] (7 of 9) [CW-22661/2025]
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that
the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue
have grossly erred in denying ad-interim relief to the petitioners,
notwithstanding the pendency of their application for interim relief
filed along with their appeal. It is urged with emphasis that such
non-grant of ad-interim protection shall inflict grave and
irreparable harm upon the petitioners, inasmuch as an 18-feet
wide passage is presently being constructed through their
agricultural lands and residential premises. In support of the plea,
learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.C.W.P. No.2888/2025 :
N.T.P.C. v. The Board of Revenue Ajmer & Ors., decided on
05.03.2025.
7. Per contra, learned counsel representing respondent No.5
raises preliminary objections while asserting that the writ petition
is not maintainable against the appellate authority's order dated
30.10.2025 (Annex.P/2), as the petitioners' application for interim
relief, filed alongside the appeal, continues to remain sub
judice/pending and the petitioners have the remedy of pursuing
the same.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions
made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material
available on record.
9. The factual matrix delineates that the respondent No.5,
having approached the competent revenue authority under
Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, succeeded in
securing an order for the sanction of an 18-feet wide pathway
traversing the petitioners' Khatedari land, despite the petitioners'
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 06:09:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50101] (8 of 9) [CW-22661/2025]
objections concerning the existence of alternative path. The SDO,
upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, decreed the suit
in favour of respondent No.5, vide order dated 13.10.2025
(Annex.P/1).
10. Aggrieved, the petitioners availed the statutory remedy by
instituting an appeal under Section 225 of the Act of 1955. The
learned Revenue Appellate Authority, upon due consideration,
declined to grant any ad-interim protection while observing that
until other respondents are heard and record of the subordinate
court is perused, direction for maintaining status quo could not
have been granted. The petitioners, thereafter, invoked the
revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue, which too, by its
order dated 14.11.2025 (Annex.P/3), did not find fit case for ad-
interim protection in favour of the petitioners and the revision is
also pending adjudication.
11. A writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, must conform to the well-settled self-
restraint exercised by this Court, especially where efficacious
alternative statutory remedies are available, which admittedly has
been availed by the petitioners, inasmuch as their appeal as also
application for grant interim relief are pending adjudication before
the Revenue Appellate Authority. The principal grievance raised by
the petitioners is confined to non-grant of ad-interim relief while
their substantive application remains pending before the appellate
authority.
12. Indeed, as pertinently urged by learned counsel for
respondent No.5, the application for grant of interim relief filed
along with the appeal is still sub judice before the learned
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 06:09:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50101] (9 of 9) [CW-22661/2025]
Revenue Appellate Authority, and the petitioners possess effective
remedy to pursue and press for interim relief before the said
forum. The exceptional and discretionary jurisdiction under Article
226 of Constitution of India is not to be exercised to circumvent
the prescribed statutory procedure or to grant parallel interim
relief, particularly in the absence of any manifest error or
perversity in the impugned appellate and revisional orders.
13. The reliance placed on the decision in S.B.C.W.P.
No.2888/2025 : N.T.P.C. v. The Board of Revenue Ajmer & Ors., is
misplaced and distinguishable on facts.
14. In light of the foregoing discussion, and being satisfied that
the petitioners have not made out a case warranting invocation of
extraordinary writ jurisdiction, the writ petition deserves dismissal.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, in the
interest of justice, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Barmer is
directed to decide the application for interim relief filed by the
petitioners along with appeal (Appeal No.61/2025) expeditiously,
preferably within a period of seven days from today. Stay Petition
also stands dismissed. No costs.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
218-DJ/-
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 06:09:43 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
