[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nanu Ram vs Bhagwati Devi (2026:Rj-Jd:14959) on 1 April, 2026
Author: Sudesh Bansal
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
[2026:RJ-JD:14959]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6830/2026
1. Nanu Ram S/o Shri Nanda Ram, Aged About 53 Years,
2. Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Nanda Ram, Aged About 64 Years,
3. Mana Ram S/o Shri Ladu Ram, Aged About 65 Years,
All above R/o Baba Ki Dhani, Village Nimod, Tehsil
Maulasar, District Didwana- Kuchaman (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Bhagwati Devi W/o Pokar Ram, R/o Village Bansa, Tehsil
Maulasar, District Didwana- Kuchaman (Raj.).
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through- The Tehsildar, Maulasar,
District Didwana- Kuchaman (Raj.).
3. The Gram Panchayat Nimod, Tehsil Maulasar, District
Didwana- Kuchaman (Raj.), Through Its Village
Development Officer.
4. The Manager, Central Bank Of India, Branch Kuchaman
City, District Didwana- Kuchaman (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Nehra
Mr. Madhaw Raj Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshat Verma
Mr. Chirag Mathur
Mr. Nikhil Saran
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
01/04/2026
1. By way of filing this writ petition, petitioner has invoked the
writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, against ad-interim stay order dated
09.03.2026 passed by the Board of Revenue during course of
hearing of revision petition No.1501/2026: titled as Bhagwati Devi
V/s. State of Rajasthan and ors.
2. Heard counsel for the petitioners so also counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent No.1 and perused the record.
(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 11:17:06 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14959] (2 of 3) [CW-6830/2026]
3. The fundamental dispute exists between parties is in respect
of availability of way in the land of Khasra No. 428, Revenue
Village Nimod, Tehsil Maulasar District Didwana-Kuchaman.
4. It appears that on the application of petitioners, Tehsildar,
Maulasar vide order dated 18.03.2025 observed that as per the
report of Halka Patwari, Nimod, a way in Khasra No.428 was
existing for ingress/egress to Main Road from Khasra Nos. 417
and 420, which has been closed. Hence, Tehsildar constituted a
team and directed to open the way in the Khasra No. 428.
5. It appears that the order dated 18.03.2025 by the Tehsildar
was passed without hearing to the affected i.e. person Khatedar of
Khasra No.428, hence, she preferred appeal thereagainst before
Additional District Collector, Didwana, registered as Appeal No.
09/2025, but same has been dismissed vide judgment dated
05.01.2026. Thereagainst affected khatedar namely Smt.
Bhagwati Devi has preferred revision petition before the Board of
Revenue. This Revision Petition has been registered on No.
1501/2026 and in this revision petition, ad interim stay order
dated 09.03.2026, to maintain the status quo in respect of the
way in question has been passed which has been challenged
herein.
6. Having heard the counsel for both parties and after perusal
of the record, this Court finds that the revision petition is pending
before the Board of Revenue, and yet to be adjudicated on merits.
Impugned order dated 09.03.2026 is ad-interim in nature, which
was passed, after hearing the petitioners as well but does not
adjudicate/decide rights of either parties finally on merits. Any
findings/observations made by this Court, in respect of way, may
(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 11:17:06 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14959] (3 of 3) [CW-6830/2026]
affect the merits of revision petition. Hence, instead of granting
indulgence in the ad interim stay order dated 09.03.2026, this
Court is of the opinion that since the issue involved is in respect of
way in question, the Board of Revenue may take up the Revision
Petition itself for hearing as early as possible and decide the same
finally on merits. Counsel appearing for both parties undertake to
cooperate the Board of Revenue to decide the revision petition
expeditiously as early as possible.
7. At the same time, it is hereby observed that since the
dispute exists between two private parties and report of revenue
authorities are available on record, counsel for both the parties do
admits that the service of State Government, Gram Panchayat,
Nimod, Tehsil Maulasar and the Manager, Central Bank of India
party respondent No. 1 to 3, in the revision petition is not required
at all. Other private respondent Nos.4 to 6 (petitioner herein)
have already put in appearance therein.
8. Therefore, without interference in the impugned order dated
09.03.2026 on merits, the instant writ petition is hereby disposed
of with direction to the Board of Revenue to decide the Revision
Petition No. 1501/2026 on merits, preferably, within a period of
three months, if possible, from the date of appearance of counsel
for both parties and may pre-pone the date of hearing. Both
parties represented through counsel, undertakes to assist the both
Board of Revenue.
9. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
Rashu/53
(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 11:17:06 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
