[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shaitan Singh vs Mitha Ram (2026:Rj-Jd:15768) on 7 April, 2026
Author: Sudesh Bansal
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
[2026:RJ-JD:15768]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5031/2026
Shaitan Singh S/o Shri Udai Singh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
Village Devnagar, Kerlanagar, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Mitha Ram S/o Heera Ram, R/o Village Rawalgarh, Tehsil
Balesar, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
2. Government Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Balesar,
District Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranjul Mehta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Kumar Ballani,
Mr. Jayant Pilawat for NP No.1
Mr. Hanuman Ram
Mr. Shravan Kumar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
07/04/2026
1. Although the present writ petition comes up on a misc.
application (IA No.1/2026) filed by respondent No.1 under Article
226(3) of the Constitution of India, seeking vacation of the ex
parte interim stay order dated 05.03.2026, however, since the
issue involved herein pertains to modification of the interim stay
order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, this Court, with the
consent of counsel for both parties, has heard the writ petition
finally on merits.
2. Petitioner has filed a revenue suit under Section 188 of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter for short "the Act of
1955") along with a stay application under Section 212 thereof,
seeking an injunction, restraining respondents-defendants from
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 11:15:57 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15768] (2 of 4) [CW-5031/2026]
entering into possession and thereby dispossess the petitioner-
plaintiff from the land held under his khatedari rights, bearing
Khasra Nos. 420 and 420/2, situated at Village Kerlanagar, Tehsil
Balesar, District Jodhpur. For ready reference, the main prayer
made by petitioner in the suit is being reproduced hereunder:-
"v& fMØh cgd oknh ds f[kykQ izfroknh la[;k bl vk'k; dh tkjh QjekbZ tkos fd
[kljk uEcj 420 jdck 1-0279 gSDVs;j [kljk uEcj 420@2 jdck 0-3480 gSDVs;j] xzke
dsjykuxj] iVokj {ks= ckyslj nqxkZork Hkw-vfHkys[k fujh{kd ckyslj rglhy ckyslj
ftyk tks/kiqj us oknh ds dCtk dk'r] mi;ksx ,oa miHkksx o fdlh izdkj dh ck/kk
izfroknhx.k u rks [kqn djs] u gh vU; ls djkos rFkk fdlh izdkj dk oknh ds fgLls dh
tehu ij fuekZ.k dk;Z ugha djs] u gh oknh dh tehu esa izos"k dj dCtk djus dh fu;r
ls tcju rkjcUnh djs] u gh ekSds dh fLFkfr esa ifjorZu djs] u gh rkjcUnh] Nh.ks
jksidj fLFkfr ifjorZu djs] u gh oknh dks oknxzLr Hkwfe ls csn[ky djsA"
3. It appears that learned Sub Divisional Officer, while issuing
notices of revenue suit along with stay application, granted an ex
parte ad-interim stay order dated 01.01.2026 in favour of
petitioner-plaintiff, directing parties to maintain status quo and not
to raise any construction over the lands bearing Khasra Nos. 420
and 420/2 (incorrectly mentioned as 420/1 in the order),
belonging to the petitioner-plaintiff, as well as Khasra Nos.
1998/2, 2057/2053, 2056/2053 and 198, belonging to respondent
No. 1-defendant.
4. Thereafter, respondent No.1-defendant filed an application
under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacating/ varying the ad interim
stay order dated 01.01.2026, stating, inter alia, that on account of
the said order, the ongoing construction and establishment of a
petrol pump over the converted land bearing Khasra No.
2056/2053 has come to a halt, which causing him substantial
hardship and inconvenience. It was further contended that the ad
interim stay order travels beyond the scope of the main relief
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 11:15:57 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15768] (3 of 4) [CW-5031/2026]
sought in the suit, and therefore, the same deserves to be
vacated/ varied.
5. It appears that on the application filed under Order 39 Rule 4
CPC, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, vide order dated
04.02.2026, modified the ad interim stay order dated 01.01.2026
by vacating the direction of status quo in respect of the lands
belonging to respondent No. 1-defendant, including Khasra No.
2056/2053, which has admittedly been converted from agricultural
to non-agricultural use for the establishment of a petrol pump.
Hence, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2026, instant
writ petition has been filed.
6. Having heard counsel for both parties and from perusal of
the impugned order dated 04.02.2026, this Court finds that the
learned Sub-Divisional Officer has assigned cogent reasons while
modifying the ad interim stay order dated 01.01.2026. Moreover,
the stay application filed by petitioner-plaintiff under Section 212
of the Act of 1955 is still pending for final adjudication. In such
circumstances, this Court does not deem it appropriate to record
any finding on merits, because same may prejudice the case of
either party. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, no
interference in the impugned order dated 04.02.2026 is warranted
by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. As a final result, the writ petition is hereby dismissed and
consequently, the interim stay order dated 05.03.2026 stands
vacated.
8. It is made clear that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, while
hearing and deciding the stay application under Section 212 of the
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 11:15:57 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15768] (4 of 4) [CW-5031/2026]
Act of 1955, shall consider the same on its own merits, as per the
material available on record, without being influenced by any
observations made by this Court in the present order.
9. Stay application, application (IA No.1/2026) and pending
application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
Sachin Sharma/ S-192
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 11:15:57 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
