[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Noratmal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:16473) on 9 April, 2026
Author: Sudesh Bansal
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
[2026:RJ-JD:16473]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7717/2026
Noratmal S/o Shri Birdaram, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of
Bajwas, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Parbatsar, Tehsil
Parbatsar, District Didwana-Kuchaman, Rajasthan.
2. Kachruram S/o Shri Prahladram, Resident Of Village
Bajwas, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
3. Motiram S/o Shri Prahladram (Dead), Through Lrs -
3/1 Muni Devi W/o Late Shri Motiram, Resident Of Village
Bajwas, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
3/2 Pannalal S/o Late Shri Motiram, Resident Of Village
Bajwas, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
3/3 Maya D/o Late Shri Motiram, Resident Of Village Bajwas,
Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
3/4 Laxmi D/o Late Shri Motiram, Resident Of Village Bajwas,
Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
3/5 Puspa D/o Late Shri Motiram, Resident Of Village Bajwas,
Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
4. Sukhdev, S/o Shri Prahladram
4/1 Padma Devi D/o Late Shri Sukhadev, Resident Of Village
Bajwas, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
4/2 Chenaram S/o Late Shri Sukhadev, Resident Of Village
Bajwas, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
4/3 Prem D/o Late Shri Sukhadev, Resident Of Village Bajwas,
Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
4/4 Santra D/o Late Shri Sukhadev, Resident Of Village
Bajwas, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
4/5 Jamna D/o Late Shri Sukhadev, Resident Of Village
Bajwas, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
5. Maina D/o Shri Prahladram, Resident Of Village Bajwas,
Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
6. Sampat S/o Shri Prahladram, Resident Of Village Bajwas,
Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
7. Ghisharam S/o Shri Gopiram, Resident Of Village Bajwas,
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 01:18:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/04/2026 at 08:38:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16473] (2 of 5) [CW-7717/2026]
Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
8. Jasli D/o Shri Gopiram, Resident Of Village Bajwas, Tehsil
Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
9. Chitarram S/o Shri Motaram, Resident Of Village Bajwas,
Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
10. Kamla W/o Shri Birdaram, Resident Of Village Bajwas,
Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
11. Janki D/o Shri Birdaram, Resident Of Village Bajwas,
Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
12. Shugan S/o Shri Birdaram, Resident Of Village Bajwas,
Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
13. Babulal S/o Shri Birdaram, Resident Of Village Bajwas,
Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
14. Nemichand S/o Shri Birdaram, Resident Of Village
Bajwas, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
15. Shivraj S/o Shri Birdaram, Resident Of Village Bajwas,
Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman.
16. Pabulal S/o Shri Keshararam, Resident Of Village
Rabdiyad, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman,
Raj.
17. Vikky Goyar S/o Shri Puranram, Resident Of Village
Bagot, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman,raj.
18. The Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
09/04/2026
1. Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, against the ad interim injunction order
dated 13.02.2026, passed ex-parte by Board of Revenue in
Revision Petition No. 624/2026 titled as Vikky Goyar Vs. Noratmal
and Ors., filed by respondent No.17 herein.
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 01:18:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16473] (3 of 5) [CW-7717/2026]
2. The factual matrix and background of filing the revision
petition before the Board of Revenue by respondent No.17-Vikky
Goyar is that in a revenue suit for partition bearing No. 60/2017
titled as Kacharuram Vs. Motiram & ors., filed under Section 53,
88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act read with Section 136 of
the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, a decree of partition was
passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Parbatsar, District Deedwana-
Kuchaman vide judgment dated 17.07.2017, based on the
compromise entered into between the parties and the compromise
along with Annexure-A ¼ifjf'k"V ^d*½ was made part of the decree.
3. It appears that petitioner preferred an appeal on 29.12.2025
against the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2017, before
Revenue Appellate Authority. The appeal is delayed by more than
9 years. In that appeal, Revenue Appellate Authority, Nagaur,
while issuing notice of the application for condonation of delay,
passed an ex-parte stay order dated 29.12.2025, directing to
maintain status quo in respect of the land of Khasra Nos.702/650,
703/650 and 704/650, which were subject matter of revenue suit
as also part and parcel of the compromise.
4. It appears that against the ex-parte stay order dated
29.12.2025, passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, one of
khatedars namely Vikky Goyar(respondent No.17 herein),
preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which
was registered as revision petition No. 624/2026 and Board of
Revenue while issuing notice on the revision petition, has passed
the order dated 13.02.2026, which has been impugned herein by
the petitioner.
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 01:18:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16473] (4 of 5) [CW-7717/2026]
5. Indisputably, appeal preferred by petitioner before Revenue
Appellate Authority was delayed for a period of more than 9 years
and that too, the appeal was filed against the judgment and
decree passed on the basis of compromise. Revenue Appellate
Authority, without entering into the issue of delay so also the
maintainability of appeal against the compromise decree passed
ex-parte stay order dated 29.12.2025.
6. Prime facie, in the opinion of this Court, the Revenue
Appellate Authority acted arbitrarily and in haste while passing the
ex-parte stay order dated 29.12.2025, in an appeal filed against
compromise decree after a period of 9 years and further the stay
order appears to be non-speaking and in violation to the
provisions of Order 41 Rule 3-A CPC.
7. This Court further finds that the respondent No. 17, instead
of seeking vacation/modification of the stay order dated
29.12.2025 before the Revenue Appellate Authority itself, directly
rushed before the Board of Revenue and filed revision petition.
The maintainability of revision petition against an ex-parte stay
order itself is an issue for consideration yet the Board of Revenue
ignoring that aspect, passed order dated 13.02.2026 impugned
herein.
8. Since the order impugned dated 13.02.2026 passed by the
Board of Revenue itself is ex-parte, hence, petitioner is at liberty
to approach before the Board of Revenue for vacation of stay
order dated 13.02.2026 as also seeking dismissal of revision
petition as not maintainable against ex-parte stay order dated
29.12.2025 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority.
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 01:18:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16473] (5 of 5) [CW-7717/2026]
9. Hence, in that view, this Court does not want to grant
indulgence in the matter leaving it open to petitioner to approach
before the Board of Revenue.
10. Consequently, without interference to the order impugned,
instant writ petition stands disposed of with the observations
hereinabove.
11. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
rashu-pcg-5
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 01:18:16 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
