[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ali Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:19658) on 27 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:19658]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9107/2026
1. Ali Khan S/o Sabu Khan, Aged About 50 Years,
Mangaliyon Ki Dhani, Chandhan, Tehsil Jaisalmer, District
Jaisalmer (Raj)
2. Namim Khan S/o Sabu Khan, Aged About 50 Years,
Mangaliyon Ki Dhani, Chandhan, Tehsil Jaisalmer, District
Jaisalmer (Raj)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary To The
Government, Department Of Revenue, Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.)
2. District Collector, Jaisalmer (Raj.)
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Jaisalmer, Jaisalmer (Raj.)
4. Naib Teshildar, Chandhan, District Jaisalmer (Raj.)
5. Patwari, Chandhan, Dist Jaisalmer (Raj).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ikbal Khan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal, GC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
27/04/2026
1. Present writ petition is filed challenging order dated
23.03.2026 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Deputy Tehsildar,
Chandhan, District Jaisalmer, whereby, while deciding proceedings
under Section 91 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act ("the Act"),
petitioners have been declared trespassers and an order for their
eviction has been passed.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the land in
question was initially allotted in favour of petitioners' father way
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 02:49:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19658] (2 of 4) [CW-9107/2026]
back in the year 1971, and since then, petitioners have been in
continuous possession thereof and are residing on said land after
raising residential construction thereon.
3. It is further submitted that inspite of such established
possession of petitioners over the land in question, proceedings
under Section 91 of the Act are being initiated against petitioners
almost every year.
4. Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal, learned Government
Counsel, upon instruction, has put in appearance on behalf of
respondents and submits that the position of law is well settled
that an order passed under Section 91 of the Act is appealable,
and therefore, a writ petition directly challenging the same before
this Court is not maintainable.
5. While placing reliance upon judgment dated 04.03.2026
passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2581/2026 (Magan
Singh vs. State of Rajasthan) and judgment dated 17.04.2026
passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8190/2026 (Lunaram
vs. State of Rajasthan), learned counsel for respondents
submits that an appeal challenging impugned order dated
23.03.2026 has already been filed before learned District
Collector, Jaisalmer, along with a stay application.
6. This Court prima facie finds that in view of judgments passed
in Magan Singh (supra) and Luna Ram (supra), present writ
petition challenging impugned order dated 23.03.2026 (Annexure-
6) is not maintainable when an alternative efficacious statutory
remedy in the form of appeal under the Act is available with
petitioners.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 02:49:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19658] (3 of 4) [CW-9107/2026]
7. However, looking to the fact that petitioners have placed on
record various documents to establish their possession over the
land in question, including the order dated 17.07.1971 allotting
land in question to petitioners' father in the year 1971 and
documents showing possession of petitioners over the land in
question in the form of residential house, this Court is of the
considered opinion that if interim relief is not granted in favour of
petitioner during the pendency of appeal, the very purpose of
filing appeal would get frustrated.
8. In view of the availability of alternative efficacious remedy,
the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable,
however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this
Court deems it appropriate to direct learned District Collector,
Jaisalmer to decide the pending appeal as well as the stay
application filed along with the same by the petitioners
expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the
date of passing of this order.
9. It is made clear that learned District Collector, Jaisalmer is
expected to decide pending appeal independently and pass
appropriate orders in respect of the same, strictly in accordance
with law, without being influenced by instant order passed by this
Court, nor by interim protection granted by this Court in favour of
petitioners.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to place copy
of this order before appellate authority.
11. Till final decision of appeal, no coercive action shall be taken
against the petitioner.
12. With these directions, present writ petition is dismissed.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 02:49:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19658] (4 of 4) [CW-9107/2026]
13. Stay application and all other pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
11-shashikant/-
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 02:49:20 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
