HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5994/2025 Nopi Daughter Of Late Ladu Son Of Ganesh, Aged About 90 Years, Resident Of Village Bagrana, Tehsil And District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Iqbal Ali Khan Son Of Sarawat Ali Khan, Resident Of Jagannath Shah Ka Rasta, Ramganj, Tehsil And District Jaipur. 2. Gyarsa, Son Of Bhoriya 3. Panchyat, Son Of Bhoriya 4. Moolchand Son Of Bhoriya, All Residents Of Bagrana, Tehsil And District Jaipur. 5. Santosh Vijay S/o Of Banwari Lal Vijay, Resident Of Jagannath Shah Ka Rasta, Ramganj, Tehsil And District Jaipur. 6. Ramsahay Son Of Gangaram, Resident Of Village Bagrana, Tehsil And District Jaipur. 7. Mohammad Rafiq, Son Of Abdul Jimal 8. Anwar Ahmad, Son Of Abdul Jimal 9. Shahid Iqbal, Son Of Abdul Jimal 10. Tarik Iqbal Son Of Abdul Jimal, Respondent No. 7 To 10 Are Residents Of House No. 1429, Takia Adam Shah Chowkri Topkhana Hajuri, Ghat Gate, Jaipur. 11. Mamta Toshniwal, Wife Of Ankit Toshniwal 12. Veena Toshniwal Wife Of Vikas Toshniwal, Both Resident Of C-123, Near Jain Mandir, Kashipuri, Bhilwara, Rajasthan. 13. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.C. Jain JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order (2 of 4) [CW-5994/2025] 22/05/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short ‘the Board’), by which the revision petition submitted by the petitioner against the order dated 15.06.2018 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short ‘RAA’) has been rejected with directions to the RAA to decide the appeal within a period of 30 days. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents before the Court of Sub Divisional Officer along with temporary injunction application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’), wherein an interim order was passed on 03.07.1996 after issuing notices to the other side. Counsel submits that when no reply was submitted to the said application, the order dated 03.07.1996 was made absolute on 29.05.2018 and the parties were directed to maintain status quo and not to sale/alienate the property in question. 3. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents preferred an appeal before the RAA and the order dated 29.05.2018 was stayed by the RAA vide order dated 15.06.2018 and notices were issued to the petitioner. Counsel submits that taking the benefit of the aforesaid situation, the land in question has been sold by the defendants in the original suit to the third party and on the basis of the same, mutation was entered in their name. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 15.06.2018, the (3 of 4) [CW-5994/2025] petitioner approached the Board by way of fling revision petition, however, the same has been rejected. Counsel submits that when a temporary injunction order was passed against the respondents, which was made absolute subsequently, there was no reason or occasion available with the RAA to stay the effect and operation of the said order, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that against the said order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, the respondents have preferred an appeal before the RAA, wherein, an interim order has been passed on 15.06.2018 and till date the said appeal is lying pending for its adjudication on merits, even then, the petitioner assailed the aforesaid order before the Board, by way of filing revision petition and the same has been rightly rejected and a direction has been issued to the RAA to decide the appeal on its merits within a period of 30 days, but in- spite of aforesaid direction issued by the Board, the petitioners are not appearing before the RAA for hearing and disposal of the pending appeal, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court not warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Without entering into the merits and demerits of the case, but looking to the fact that against the order dated 29.05.2018, an appeal has been preferred by the respondents (4 of 4) [CW-5994/2025] before the RAA and the same is lying pending for its adjudication on merits, it is expected from both the parties to argue the said appeal, so that the appeal may be decided on its merits. 7. The Board has not committed any error in passing the order directing the RAA to hear and decide the appeal in 30 days. 8. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of reiterating the same order/direction issued by the Board to the RAA to decide the pending appeal expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of 30 days on its merits. 9. For a period of 30 days, the parties are restrained to further sale/alienate the property in question. 10. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/3