Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10467 (RAJ)

PRIYANKA SINGH, WIDOW OF LATE SIDDHARTH SINGH, DAUGHTER OF SHRI P.P. SINGH v. HEMANT SINGH S/O LATE SHRI SHANTANU KUMAR

CW/4588/2025 · 2025-04-24

Anoop Kumar Dhand

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4588/2025 Priyanka Singh, Widow Of Late Siddharth Singh, Daughter Of Shri P.P. Singh, Resident Of 11/498 Bhawani Singh Lane, Behind Aalu Factory, 22 Godown, Jaipur At Present Resident Of A-13, Alokik Residency Royale, Bhagat Singh Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Hemant Singh S/o Late Shri Shantanu Kumar, Resident Of Firdaus Farm, Zone-C Bypass, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur. 2. Pramila Kumari W/o Late Shri Shantanu Kumar, Resident Of Firdaus Farm, Zone-C Bypass, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur. 3. Mahaveer Singh, Registrar, Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan 4. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer Through Its Chairman, Ajmer. 5. Rajasthan State, Through Tehsildar, Tehsil And District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Ranjan For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 24/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to decide the revision petition submitted by the petitioner way back in the year 2018. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur, a (2 of 2) [CW-4588/2025] revision petition under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’) was preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short, ‘the Board’) but inspite of passing of considerable time, till date, the revision petition has not been decided, therefore appropriate direction be issued in this regard. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that a revision petition under Section 84 of the Act of 1956 was submitted by the petitioner before the Board in the year 2018 but inspite of passing of considerable time, till date, the same has not been decided by the Board. 5. Looking to the aforesaid material and factual aspect of the matter, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the present writ petition by issuing a direction to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to decide the revision petition expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, after hearing the arguments of both side in accordance with law. 6. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/28