[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jyoti vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 24 March, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:13729-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 226/2026
1. Jyoti D/o Shri Jugal Kishore, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Near Baba Ramdev Temple, Mehro Ka Mohalla, Bikaner.
2. Legal Representatives Of Kamal Kishore, Son Of Shri
Mangal Chand.
2/1. Smt. Anita Mehra widow of late Shri Kamal Kishore, Aged
About 43 Years, Resident Of 12, Infront Of Mahadev
Mandir, Ward No. 50, Hanuman Hatha, Bikaner.
2/2. Divya Mehra D/o Late Shri Kamal Kishore, Aged About 20
Years, Resident Of 12, Infront Of Mahadev Mandir, Ward
No. 50, Hanuman Hatha, Bikaner.
2/3. Anand Mehra S/o Late Shri Kamal Kishore, Aged About 19
Years, Resident Of 12, Infront Of Mahadev Mandir, Ward
No. 50, Hanuman Hatha, Bikaner.
3. Laxmi Devi W/o Shri Mangal Chand, Aged About 66 Years,
Resident Of Near Ramdev Mandir, Near Khiyera House,
Purani Ginani, Bikaner.
4. Preeti D/o Shri Jugal Kishore, Aged About 34 Years,
Resident Of Near Baba Ramdev Temple, Behind Nagar
Nigam, Mehro Ka Mohalla, Bikaner.
5. Fakeerchand Alias Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Ram
Chandra, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of Near Ramdev
Mandir, Old Ginnani, Bikaner.
6. Legal Representatives Of Magharam, Son Of Late Shri
Rupchand
6/1. Giriraj S/o Late Shri Magha Ram, Aged About 50 Years,
Resident Of 162, Ramdev Ji Ka Mandir Wali Gali, Indra
Colony, Bikaner.
6/2. Tara D/o Late Shri Magha Ram, Wife Of Shri Indra Singh,
Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of 523, Behind Nagar
Nigam, Mehro Ka Mohalla, Bikaner.
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Bhanwara Ram S/o Shri Sugna Ram, Resident Of
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:26:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:12:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13729-DB] (2 of 9) [SAW-226/2026]
Ridmalsar Purohitan, Tehsil And District Bikaner.
3. Kistur Chand S/o Shri Seva Ram, Resident Of Ridmalsar
Purohitan, Tehsil And District Bikaner.
4. Jivanram S/o Shri Seva Ram, Resident Of Ridmalsar
Purohitan, Tehsil And District Bikaner.
5. Amilak Chand S/o Shri Seva Ram, Resident Of Ridmalsar
Purohitan, Tehsil And District Bikaner.
6. Sugna Ram S/o Shri Jesa Ram (Deceased), Through His
Legal Representative Bhanwara Ram, Son Of Late Shri
Sugna Ram, Resident Of Ridmalsar Purohitan, tehsil And
District Bikaner.
7. Tehsildar (Revenue), Bikaner
8. Dhanraj S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Resident Of Modern
Market, Bikaner.
9. Smt. Sumitra Devi W/o Shri Dhanraj, Resident Of Modern
Market, Bikaner.
10. Neha Mehra D/o Late Shri Kamal Kishore Mehra, Resident
Of Anand Niketan, Infront Of Bhawani Dairy Farm,
Hanuman Hatha, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rakesh Chotia and
Mr. Samyak Dalal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Judgment
24/03/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present special appeal has been preferred challenging
the validity of the order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the learned
Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19531/2023. By the
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:26:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13729-DB] (3 of 9) [SAW-226/2026]
said order, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition
filed by the petitioners-appellants in the following terms:
"16. Accordingly, the order dated 27.06.2023 (Annexure-
5) passed by the Board of Revenue is hereby set aside to
the limited extent insofar as it remands the matter to the
Court of the Assistant Collector. It is directed that the
matter shall stand remanded to the Revenue Appellate
Authority, Bikaner. The petitioners shall be at liberty to file
application for bringing the legal representatives of the
dead persons on record before the RAA, Bikaner.
Thereafter, the Revenue Appellate Authority shall decide
the appeal afresh on its own merits, strictly in accordance
with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all
concerned parties.
17. It has been rightly pointed out by counsel for the
respondent that although the order dated 27.06.2023
(Annexure-5) passed by the Board of Revenue was a
common order against several parties (petitioners in the
present writ petition), the review petition before the
Board of Revenue was filed by Fakirchand alias Mahendra
Singh, who is petitioner No.5 in the present writ petition
only. None of the other petitioners had sought review of
the said order dated 27.06.2023. This Court finds that the
order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure-7) passed in the
review proceedings could, therefore, have been
challenged only at the instance of Fakirchand alias
Mahendra Singh. The remaining petitioners, not being
applicants in the review proceedings, lacked the locus
standi to assail the review order in the present writ
petition. Accordingly, the order dated 17.10.2023
(Annexure-7) passed by the Board of Revenue in review
proceedings (Annexure-7) is hereby quashed and set
aside qua Fakirchand alias Mahendra Singh (petitioner
No.5) alone. The challenge to the said order at the
instance of the other petitioners is held to be not
maintainable and is rejected.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:26:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13729-DB] (4 of 9) [SAW-226/2026]
18. In view of the above directions, this writ petition as
well as any application if, pending stands disposed of. No
order as to costs."
3. The facts giving rise to the present Special Appeal are that
the appellants along with others (Kamal Kishore and others) had
instituted a suit for declaration of tenancy rights concerning
Khasra No.202 (min), new Khasra No.7 measuring 155 bighas,
and Khasra No. 10 measuring 62 bighas and 14 biswas, situated in
Village Himatasar before the Assistant Collector, Bikaner. The said
suit was registered as suit No.105/2011 (Mangal Chand & Ors. vs.
Kistur Chand & Ors.), which was dismissed vide order dated
30.12.2011. During the pendency of the said suit, defendant No.5
- Sugna Ram son of Jesa Ram expired, however, since his legal
representative, respondent No.2 - Bhanwara Ram was already on
record as a party defendant but he did not inform the Court about
the death of Sugna Ram. Aggrieved by the order dated
30.12.2011, Kamal Kishore son of Mangal Chand (original plaintiff)
and others preferred two separate Appeal Nos.36/2012 and
37/2012 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, which
were allowed vide judgment dated 02.06.2023. The appellant No.2
- Kamal Kishore expired on 13.11.2015 and appellant No.6 -
Magha Ram expired on 09.03.2016, however, this fact could not
be brought on record before the Revenue Appellate Authority.
Thereafter, respondent No.2 - Bhanwara Ram alone preferred a
second appeal (Appeal/Decree/TA/2943/2023 /Bikaner) before the
learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, challenging the judgment dated
02.06.2023. The learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, vide judgment
dated 27.06.2023, allowed the second appeal preferred by the
respondent No.2 and quashed and set aside the order dated
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:26:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13729-DB] (5 of 9) [SAW-226/2026]
30.12.2011 passed by the Assistant Collector, Bikaner, as well as
the judgment dated 02.06.2023 passed by the Revenue Appellate
Authority, Bikaner, and remanded the matter back to the Assistant
Collector for fresh decision in accordance with law after taking on
record the legal representatives of the aforesaid deceased
persons. Since the said judgment was passed ex-parte and
without affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners/appellants and no notices were issued to all concerned
parties, therefore, appellant No.5 preferred a review petition
(No.3884/2023) before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, contending
that respondent No.2 - Bhanwara Ram had no locus standi to
approach the court and that he has concealed the material facts
from the knowledge of the Court and he has not come with clean
hands. The learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer dismissed the said
review petition vide order dated 17.10.2023.
4. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 27.06.2023 and
17.10.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer,
the appellants preferred the aforesaid writ petition with the
following prayers:-
"a) Order dated 27.06.2023 (Annexure-5) read with order
dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure-7) passed by the Board of
Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer may kindly be quashed and
set aside.
(b) The impugned action of the respondents may kindly
be declared bad in the eye of law.
(c) During the pendency of this petition, if any order is
passed or any action is taken against the petitioners
prejudicial to their interests, the same may kindly be
taken on record and may be quashed and set aside."
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:26:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13729-DB] (6 of 9) [SAW-226/2026]
5. The learned Single Bench vide order dated 09.01.2026
dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal has been
filed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted
that the second appeal could not have been filed by respondent
No.2 - Bhanwra Ram, who is son of Sugna Ram. He submits that
since Bhanwara Ram was a party-respondent in the proceedings
before the first appellate authority and he is also the son Sugna
Ram, therefore, the legal representative of Sugna Ram was duly
represented and, therefore, the second appellate authority has
committed an error while passing the order dated 27.06.2023.
Learned counsel, therefore, submits that writ Court has not
considered the submissions made before it in its correct
perspective and has also rejected the writ petition on the same
grounds. Learned counsel further submits that other legal heirs of
Sugna Ram were required to be brought on record by the
respondents and since they have failed to bring the legal
representatives on record, therefore, it was not the fault on the
part of the present appellants and the first appellate authority has,
therefore, rightly passed the order in their favour.
7. However, learned counsel for the appellants is not in a
position to refute that Bhanwara Ram was also party-respondent
before the first appellate authority as well as in the suit
proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that even before the
Board of Revenue only appellant No.5 Fakir Chand (respondent
No.5 in second appeal before Board of Revenue) appeared on
caveat and no other appellants were present at the time of
deciding the second appeal vide order dated 27.06.2023. He
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:26:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13729-DB] (7 of 9) [SAW-226/2026]
further submits that since other appellants were not heard in the
matter, therefore, the Board of Revenue has committed an error
while passing the order dated 27.06.2023. He, therefore, prays
that the present appeal and the writ petitions filed by the
appellants-petitioners may be allowed and the orders passed by
the Board of Revenue on 27.06.2023 and 17.10.2023 may be
quashed and set aside.
8. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 submits that during the pendency of first appeal, three
persons namely Kistur Chand, Kamal Kishore and Magga Ram had
passed away and, therefore, the order of the first appellate
authority against the dead persons is a nullity. He further submits
that even Sugna Ram, who was arrayed as party-respondent
before the first appellate authority was not surviving, despite this
fact, the first appellate authority has passed the order without
bringing on record the other legal representatives of Sugna Ram.
He further submits that since the respondent - Bhanwara Ram was
one of the respondent before the first appellate authority and was
also son of Sugna Ram has rightly assailed the order of the first
appellate authority by filing the second appeal before the Board of
Revenue as Bhanwara Ram was also independently arrayed as
party respondent before the first appellate authority as well as in
the suit. He, therefore, submits that the second appeal filed by
Bhanwara Ram before the Board of Revenue was maintainable. He
further submits that Board of Revenue has rightly passed the
orders dated 27.06.2023 and 17.10.2023, whereby the matter
was remanded back to the trial court with a direction to take
appropriate steps for bringing on record legal representatives of
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:26:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13729-DB] (8 of 9) [SAW-226/2026]
the persons, who have died during the pendency of the suit/first
appeal and thereafter, decide the matter after giving an
opportunity of hearing. He further submits that the Board of
Revenue has not rejected the matter on merit and, therefore, no
illegality has been committed by the Board of Revenue in passing
the orders dated 27.06.2023 and 17.10.2023. Learned counsel
further submits that for the self same reasons, the learned writ
court has rightly rejected writ petition filed by the petitioners-
appellants, therefore, no interference is warranted in this appeal.
9. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and
have gone through the relevant record of the case.
10. It is true that a suit has been filed by the petitioners-
appellants before the Assistant Collector and the same was
dismissed against which the first appeal was filed before the
Revenue appellate authority. During the pendency of the suit
proceedings and the first appellate proceedings, some of the
persons, who were arrayed as respondents have died and,
therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned revenue court and
the first appellate court to take appropriate steps for bringing on
record the legal representatives of those persons, who have died
during the pendency of the proceedings. Since, appropriate steps
were not taken by the learned revenue court and first appellate
authority to bring on record the legal representatives of the
deceased persons, the learned Board of Revenue by orders dated
27.06.2023 and 17.10.2023 rightly allowed the second appeal
filed by Bhanwara Ram and the matter was remanded back with a
direction to proceed with the matter after taking requisite steps
for bringing on record all those legal representatives of the
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:26:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13729-DB] (9 of 9) [SAW-226/2026]
deceased persons, who have died during the pendency of
proceedings before trial court and appellate court.
11. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is a settled
proposition of law that no order or decree can be passed against a
dead person and, admittedly, in the present case, as many as four
persons have died during the pendency of the suit proceedings as
well as first appellate court's proceedings. Therefore, no order can
be passed against the dead persons without bringing on record
their legal representatives.
12. In the considered opinion of this Court, no illegality has been
committed by the Board of Revenue while passing the orders
dated 27.06.2023 and 17.10.2023.
13. Resultantly, the writ petition filed by the petitioners-
appellants assailing the validity of these orders has rightly been
rejected by the learned Single Judge, therefore, we find no force
in the present appeal.
14. Accordingly, the present appeal is, hereby, dismissed.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
7-Payal/-
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:26:16 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
