[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Banshi Ram vs Pema Ram (2026:Rj-Jd:6253) on 3 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:6253]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10386/2025
Banshi Ram S/o Shri Amara Ram, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
Paldi Kalan, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Pema Ram S/o Shri Chhagan Lal, R/o Bikharniya Khurd,
Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur (Raj.).
2. Jora Ram S/o Shri Parma Ram, R/o Paldi Kalan, Tehsil
Degana, District Nagaur (Raj.).
3. Bhika Ram S/o Shri Choutha Ram, R/o Paldi Kalan, Tehsil
Degana, District Nagaur (Raj.).
4. Rampyari D/o Shri Choutha Ram, R/o Paldi Kalan, Tehsil
Degana, District Nagaur (Raj.).
5. Munni D/o Choutha Ram, R/o Paldi Kalan, Tehsil Degana,
District Nagaur (Raj.).
6. Tehsildar, Degana, District Nagaur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohitash Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
03/02/2026
1. Present writ petition is filed praying for following reliefs:
"(i) The order dated 07/11/2024 (Annexure-7)
passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer,
Degana, District Nagaur, in revenue suit no.
102/2017 titled as Pema Ram versus Bhika Ram &
others by which application of the petitioner-
defendant was rejected, filed for restoring the
previous position of the land in the revenue record
which exist on the date of filing the revenue suit,
after removing/deleting the entries which were
recorded in compliance of the judgment & decree
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 05:36:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6253] (2 of 5) [CW-10386/2025]
dated 30/07/2018 (Annexure-1), may kindly be
quashed and set aside.
(ii). The Learned court of SDO Degana may kindly be
directed to restore the previous position of the land
of kahasra no. 394 of the village Paldi Kalan, Tehsil
Degana, District Nagaur, in the revenue record which
exist on the date of filing the revenue suit, after
removing/deleting the entries which were recorded in
compliance of the judgment & decree dated
30/07/2018.
(ii). Pass any other order or direction, which this
Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner.
(iv). Allow cost of the writ petition to the
petitioners."
2. Explaining facts of the present case, learned counsel for
petitioner stated that respondent no. 1/plaintiff - Pema Ram filed a
Revenue Suit No. 102/2017 for partition of land in dispute and
same was decreed by the Court of Assistant Collector - Sub
Divisional Officer ("SDO"), Degana vide judgment dated
30.07.2018 and specific directions were issued to Tehsildar,
Degana to incorporate necessary mutation entries in view of the
report prepared by concerned Patwari. In pursuance of the same,
revenue records were updated by Tehsildar, Degana.
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner,
having purchased a part of land in dispute from one Jora Ram,
during the pendency of the said suit proceedings, vide registered
sale deed dated 14.03.2018, challenged judgment and decree
dated 30.07.2018 along with his vendor - Jora Ram before
Revenue Appellate Authority ("RRA"), Nagaur, whereby RRA,
Nagaur has, vide its judgment dated 21.01.2020, set aside order
dated 30.07.2018 and remanded the matter to the Court of SDO,
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 05:36:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6253] (3 of 5) [CW-10386/2025]
Degana for fresh adjudication. Said order was later on upheld by
the Board of Revenue, Ajmer ("BOR") also.
2.2 In these circumstances, petitioner preferred an application
before the Court of SDO, Degana praying for a direction to be
issued to Tehsildar, Degana to restore revenue entries to the
position as existed before the passing of judgment and decree
dated 30.07.2018.
2.3 Said application was contested on behalf of respondents on
the grounds that no specific direction was given to SDO, Degana
in the remand order for the alteration of the revenue record.
2.4 SDO, Degana, while considering the material available on
record, rejected application of petitioner vide its order dated
07.11.2024, observing that in remand order dated 21.01.2020, no
specific direction has been given to restore the status quo ante
prior to 30.07.2018 so also on the ground that in the main suit,
petitioner - Banshi Ram has already been impleaded as party-
respondent and, on his application under Section 212 of Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, interim order for maintaining status quo of the land
in question has already been granted by the Court.
2.5 Challenging said order dated 07.11.2024 of SDO, Degana,
present writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that once, initial
judgment and decree dated 30.07.2018 has been set aside by
learned RAA, application filed by petitioner to restore the status
quo ante regarding revenue record ought to have been granted by
the Court of SDO, Degana.
3.1 Learned counsel for petitioner also stated that if revenue
record is allowed to remain intact in the name of respondents,
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 05:36:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6253] (4 of 5) [CW-10386/2025]
they may change the status of the land as well as revenue record
and same will adversely effect the rights of the petitioner.
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and have perused the
material available on record.
5. This Court finds that prayer for change of revenue record to
the position it existed prior to 30.07.2018 is made based upon
order dated 21.01.2020 passed by learned RAA. However, in the
operative part of said order dated 21.01.2020, it is clearly
recorded that appeal of petitioner was partly allowed and matter
has been remanded to the Court of SDO, Degana to decide the
matter afresh. No specific order has been passed by learned RAA
to change the revenue record and restore the position as existed
prior to 30.07.2018.
5.1 Apprehension of petitioner that if the revenue record is
allowed to exist in favour of respondent, there is possibility that
respondent may change status of the land/revenue record, is also
found to be misconceived. A perusal of the record shows that
petitioner himself has been impleaded as party in the main suit
and upon his own application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, the status quo order has been granted in favour of
petitioner and the same is still operative. In this view of the
matter, the said apprehension of petitioner is wholly misplaced
and thus, not acceptable.
5.2 Even otherwise, this Court finds that sale in favour of
petitioner was made during pendency of the suit filed by Pema
Ram, which is always subject to the principle of lis pendens. No
application as such has been filed by Jora Ram for restoring his
name in revenue record as existed prior to 30.07.2018, therefore,
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 05:36:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6253] (5 of 5) [CW-10386/2025]
also application preferred by subsequent purchaser is also not
maintainable.
6. This Court finds that suit in question is pending consideration
before the Court of SDO, Degana after remand order dated
21.01.2020 and an order of status quo is already operating in
favour of petitioner. In such circumstances, any direction to
change the revenue record as it existed prior to 30.07.2018 would
further complicate the matter and lead to multiplicity of
proceedings. Therefore, this Court finds that no illegality has been
committed by SDO, Degana in rejecting application of petitioner.
7. Petitioner has failed to establish any manifest illegality,
perversity, jurisdictional error or error apparent on the face of
record, which may call for interference by this Court under its
certiorari jurisdiction.
8. Consequently, the writ petition challenging the impugned
order, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. The Sub
Divisional Officer, Degana is directed to decide the main suit as
expeditiously as possible.
9. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
31-praveen/-
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 05:36:20 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
