HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5659/2025 1. Brajmohan S/o Ramsharan, R/o Village Falyawas Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipu 2. Suwalal S/o Ramsharan, R/o Village Falyawas Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipu ----Petitioners Versus 1. Badrinarayan S/o Harinarayan, R/o Village Falyawas, Tehsil Bassi District Jaipur 2. Ramavatar S/o Harinarayan, R/o Village Falyawas, Tehsil Bassi District Jaipur 3. Chhoti Devi W/o Ramratan, R/o Village Falyawas, Tehsil Bassi District Jaipur 4. Radheyshyam S/o Ramratan, R/o Village Falyawas, Tehsil Bassi District Jaipur 5. Rajulal S/o Ramratan, R/o Village Falyawas, Tehsil Bassi District Jaipur 6. Radhamohan S/o Ramratan, R/o Village Falyawas, Tehsil Bassi District Jaipur 7. Dwarika Prasad S/o Ramratan, R/o Village Falyawas, Tehsil Bassi District Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 24/07/2025 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short, ‘Board’), the instant writ petition has been preferred. (2 of 3) [CW-5659/2025] 2. By passing the order dated 12.02.2025, a direction has been issued by the Board to the Sub Divisional Officer (for short, ‘SDO’) to carry out measurement and demarcation of the subject land in accordance with law within a period of two months. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid order has been passed showing consent of both the sides, rather the matter was contested by the petitioners and after hearing the contested arguments, the order was reserved by the Board of Revenue on 11.02.2025. Counsel submits that in utter surprise, on the next date i.e. on 12.02.2025, a consent order has been passed, indicating that the petitioner has given his consent for the aforesaid directions for measurement and demarcation. Counsel submits that once the matter was contested at the instance of the petitioner, there was no reason available with the Board to record consent of the petitioner, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that consent was given by the petitioner before the Board, that is why, consent order was passed on 12.02.2025, but if the petitioner is disputing his consent, then, the respondent is also withdrawing his consent. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the matter be remitted to the Board for fresh disposal of the revision petition. 5. Considering the above arguments raised by the counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that one party is disputing his consent before the Board, the instant writ (3 of 3) [CW-5659/2025] petition stands disposed of by quashing the impugned order dated 12.02.2025. The matter is remitted to the Board for disposal of the revision petition on its merits. 6. The parties are directed to appear before the Board on 11.08.2025. 7. Since, a short issue with regard to measurement and demarcation is involved, it is expected from the Board to decide the revision petition on merits, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/23