[2025:RJ-JP:17499] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 689/2006 1. 2. 2/1 2/2. Gopal Son of Ramsukh, aged about 90 years, Resident of Madho Singh Pura, Tehsil Sawaimadhopur, District Sawaimadhopur. Kalyan Son of Shri Gopal, aged about 60 Years, Resident of Madho Singh Pura, Tehsil Sawaimadhopur, Dist. Sawaimadhopur. (Since Deceased Through Legal Heirs) Smt. Mathura Devi Wife of Late Shri Kalyan, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of Village Madho Singh Pura, Sawai Madhopur Shri Shanker Lal, Son of Late Shri Kalyan, Aged About 64 Years, Resident of Village Madho Singh Pura, Sawai Madhopur 2/3. 2/4. 2/5. Shri Radheyshyam, Son of Late Shri Kalyan, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Village Madho Singh Pura, Sawai Madhopur Shri Prabhu Dayal, Son of Late Shri Kalyan, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Village Madho Singh Pura, Sawai Madhopur Shri Hemraj, Son of Late Shri Kalyan, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Village Madho Singh Pura, Sawai Madhopur 2/6. Shri Jai Prakash, Son Of Late Shri Kalyan, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Village Madho Singh Pura, Sawai Madhopur ----Petitioners Versus 1. Municipal Council, Sawai Madhopur. 2. Madan Lal S/o Late Shri Gopal, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Madho Singh Pura, Tehsil Sawaimadhopur, Dist. Sawaimadhopur. 3. District Collector, Sawai Madhopur. 4. Tehsildar, Sawai Madhopur. ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:17499] (2 of 4) [CW-689/2006] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Alok Garg with Ms. Sonal Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Batra-G.C with Ms. Gunjan Chawla, Mr. Harshit Mr. B.K. Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 24/04/2025 1. A limited prayer has been made by the counsel for the petitioner for issuing a direction to the respondents to decide the application submitted by the petitioners under Section 90(B) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act of 1956’). 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in possession of the land bearing Khasra No.178 situated at Madho Singh Pura Road and for conversion of the land an application was submitted by him in the year 1998 in the requisite format before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sawaimadhopur. Counsel submits that the requisite charges of Rs.625/- were also deposited through bank challan on 20.06.1998 but till date, the said application has not been decided by the respondents by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, appropriate direction be issued. 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submitted that no such application was ever submitted by the petitioners. Hence, under these circumstances, there was no reason for the respondents to decide the same. Thus, interference of this court is [2025:RJ-JP:17499] (3 of 4) [CW-689/2006] not warranted. Counsel submits that even no prayer in the writ petition for conversion of the land has been mentioned for issuing such direction. 4. In rebuttal, counsel for the petitioners submits that instead of deciding the application submitted by the petitioners, the respondents issued notice under Section 91 of the Act of 1956 for his ejectment from the land bearing No.177 which has no concern with the other property bearing No.178 for which the land conversion application was submitted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the memo of the writ petition indicates that a specific averment has been made in this regard that the petitioners have submitted an application under Section 90-B of the Act of 1956 with regard to 586.66 sq. yards along with requisite format by depositing a sum of Rs.625/-. The reply to the aforesaid has been submitted by the respondents wherein this fact has not been denied, rather they have stated that in absence of the consent of other Khatedar, no order can be passed. 7. Considering the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioners, the present writ petition stands disposed of by issuing a direction to the respondents to decide the application filed by the petitioners, expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 8. Needless to observe that this Court has not issued any order or direction to the respondent-Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the [2025:RJ-JP:17499] (4 of 4) [CW-689/2006] same in a particular way. He would be at liberty to decide the same in accordance with law. 9. Interim order passed by this Court shall continue for a period of three months. 10. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/38