[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prem Kanwar vs Smt. Maina Devi (2026:Rj-Jd:11734-Db) on 12 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:11734-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 320/2026
1. Prem Kanwar W/o Shankar, Aged About 62 Years,
Resident Of Champavto Ka Bass, Gram Binawas, Tehsil
Bilara, Dist-Jodhpur Rajasthan.
2. Hanuwant Singh Bhati S/o Shankar Singh Bhati, Aged
About 38 Years, Resident Of Champavto Ka Bass, Gram
Binawas, Tehsil Bilara, Dist-Jodhpur Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Smt. Maina Devi D/o Lrs. Late Sh. Tiku Ram, By Caste
Rajput, R/o Gram Binawas, Tehsil Bilara, Dist-Jodhpur
Rajasthan.
2. Kan Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, Gram Binawas, Tehsil
Bilara, Dist-Jodhpur Rajasthan
3. Ganpat Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, Gram Binawas, Tehsil
Bilara, Dist-Jodhpur Rajasthan
4. Mangal Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, Gram Binawas, Tehsil
Bilara, Dist-Jodhpur Rajasthan
5. Mokal Kanwar D/o Bhanwar Singh, Gram Binawas, Tehsil
Bilara, Dist-Jodhpur Rajasthan
6. Shyam Singh, Gram Binawas, Tehsil Bilara, Dist-Jodhpur
Rajasthan
7. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Binawas, Tehsil Bilara Dist.
Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.K. Bhaiya with
Mr. Mayank Bhaiya
For Respondent(s) : --
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order(Oral)
12/03/2026
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 01:10:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11734-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-320/2026]
Per: Arun Monga J.
1. The present DB special appeal arises out of the order dated
04.02.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.24743/2025 whereby the learned Single Judge
declined to interfere with the order passed by Board of Revenue
rejecting the impleadment application of the appellants.
2. Facts of the case leading to the present appeal are that
respondent No.1, Smt. Maina Devi, filed an appeal on 24.07.2020
under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ('Act
of 1956'), challenging the mutation entry dated 06.10.1983
recorded in the name of Shri Bhanwar Singh, the father of
respondent Nos.2 to 5. During the pendency of the said appeal,
Smt. Maina Devi executed a power of attorney on 21.06.2021 in
favour of one Shri Shankar Singh.
2.1. The appeal filed on behalf of Smt. Maina Devi came to be
allowed by the Court of Assistant Collector-cum-Sub-Divisional
Officer, Bilara, vide order dated 26.10.2021. Aggrieved by the said
order, respondent Nos.2 to 5 preferred an appeal under Section 76
of the Act of 1956 before the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur.
The said appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.04.2024.
2.2. Thereafter, respondent Nos.2 to 5 assailed the orders dated
26.10.2021 and 24.04.2024 by filing a revision petition under
Section 84 of the Act of 1956 before the Board of Revenue.
2.3. During the pendency of the revision proceedings, the
appellants purchased the property in question and filed an
application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking their impleadment
as subsequent purchasers. The said application was dismissed by
the Board of Revenue vide order dated 11.06.2025, and the
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 01:10:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11734-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-320/2026]
review petition preferred against the said order was also dismissed
on 08.12.2025.
2.4. The appellants challenged the aforesaid orders dated
11.06.2025 and 08.12.2025 by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.24743/2025 which too stood dismissed vide impugned order
dated 04.02.2026.
2.5. Hence, the present special appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the order
dated 04.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby
the writ petition has been dismissed, is contrary to the settled
principles of law as well as the facts available on record and,
therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3.1. Learned counsel for the appellants further argues that the
property in question was purchased by the appellants during the
pendency of the proceedings and, therefore, they had moved an
application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment as
parties to the proceedings, being necessary parties to the dispute.
However, the said application was rejected, which constrained the
appellants to prefer the writ petition before the learned Single
Judge.
3.2. Learned counsel also submits that despite the fact that the
entire documentary evidence was available on record, the learned
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants
without properly appreciating the material placed before the
Court. It is thus contended that the impugned order dated
04.02.2026 is unsustainable in the eye of law and deserves to be
quashed and set aside, and consequently, the writ petition filed by
the appellants deserves to be allowed as prayed for.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 01:10:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11734-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-320/2026]
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the
material available on record.
5. The learned Single Judge rightly upheld the decision of the
Board of Revenue in rejecting the appellants' application for
impleadment. He took note of the undisputed position that the
appellants, who are none other than the wife and son of the power
of attorney holder, Shri Shankar Singh, had entered into the
transaction with full and conscious knowledge of the subsisting
interim order dated 08.05.2024. Any transfer effected in the face
of such a restraint cannot be regarded as a bona fide transaction.
Rather, it clearly reflects a deliberate attempt to circumvent the
authority of the Court and to create third-party interests during
the pendency of proceedings. In such circumstances, the
appellants could not legitimately claim the status of bona fide
purchasers or assert any independent right to be impleaded in the
pending proceedings.
6. The learned Single Judge also found no infirmity in the order
dated 08.12.2025 whereby the review petition was dismissed,
observing that the appellants had failed to demonstrate any error
apparent on the face of the record, an essential prerequisite for
invoking the limited jurisdiction of review. Moreover, he also
recorded, and in our opinion also, rightly so, that the appellants
had suppressed and concealed material facts, thereby approaching
the Court without candour. It is a well-settled principle that a
litigant who seeks equitable relief must come to the Court with
clean hands; a party guilty of suppression or misrepresentation
forfeits any claim to such discretionary relief.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 01:10:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11734-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-320/2026]
7. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the reasoning
and approach adopted by the learned Single Judge in the
impugned order/judgment dated 04.02.2026. The record
unmistakably reveals not merely suppression and concealment of
material facts but a consistent pattern of conduct on the part of
the appellants aimed at misleading the revenue authorities as well
as the Court. It was in view of this persistent and deliberate
misconduct that the learned Single Judge found it necessary to
make certain strong and caustic observations against the
appellants.
8. Notwithstanding, even more disturbing is the fact that, despite
such judicial censure, the appellants have shown no inclination to
correct their course and have continued to pursue the same
strategy of obfuscation, now attempting to mislead us as well.
Such conduct cannot though be countenanced, but on the earnest
request of the learned counsel for the appellant we are refraining
ourselves to impose any costs.
9. Appeal being bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
10. Any pending applications also stand disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (ARUN MONGA),J
26-AbhishekK/Amar-
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 01:10:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
