[2025:RJ-JP:16891] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3756/2025 Gopal Singh S/o Mewa Singh, R/o Rail Ka Badiya, Village Sedriya, Tehsil And District Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Priti Banasiya W/o Sandeep Banasiya, R/o Near 9 Number Petrol Pump, Bhajanganj, Ajmer. 2. Arun Banasiya W/o Pradeep Banasiya, R/o Near 9 Number Petrol Pump, Bhajanganj, Ajmer. 3. State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Ajmer. 4. Sub-Registrar, First And Second, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shiv Shanker Choudhary JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 22/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to to orders dated 16.06.2022, 02.02.2023 & 15.01.2025 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Ajmer, Revenue Appellate Authority (for short ‘RAA’) and Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short ‘the Board’). 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer vide impugned order dated 16.06.2022 rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and the said order has been further upheld by the RAA as well as the Board vide order dated 02.02.2023 and 15.01.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the property in question from the khatedar-Ratna s/o [2025:RJ-JP:16891] (2 of 3) [CW-3756/2025] Ganga Ram by a registered sale-deed dated 28.01.2022 and on the basis of the same, he has right title and interest over the property in question. 4. On the contrary, the case of the respondents is that the property in question was sold by khatedar-Ratna s/o Ganga Ram to the respondents way-back in the year 2008 by way of registered sale-deed. Learned counsel submits that due to inadvertent error in the revenue record, the name of Ratna remained as Khatedar that is why he sold the same property to the petitioner. 5. Considering the rival submissions raised by the counsel for the parties, the Temporary Injunction application submitted by the petitioner was not only rejected by the Trial Court, but the order passed by the Trial Court was upheld by two Appellate Courts by way of passing two different orders. Since the concurrent finding of fact has been recorded against the petitioner, this Court does not deem it just and proper to re-appreciate the arguments again in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction contained under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. In view of above, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand dismissed. 7. However, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ajmer is directed to decide the main suit expeditiously as early as possible within a period of two years from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. [2025:RJ-JP:16891] (3 of 3) [CW-3756/2025] 8. It is made clear that, in case, the property in question is sold by either of the parties during pendency of the suit the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 would apply. 9. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that the Trial Court would decide the suit on its merits on the basis of evidence and documents produced by the rival sides without being influenced by any observations made by the Trial Court, Appellate Courts and this Court. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/19