HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5673/2018 1. 2. 3. Dhakeli W/o Late Shri Mishri Lal, aged about adult years, Vinod S/o Late Shri Mishri Lal, aged about adult years, Raju S/o Late Shri Mishri Lal, aged about 34years, All are R/o Bhidra, Tehsil Nadbai, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioners Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. The Murti Mandir Shri Laxman Ji Mahraj, R/o Bhidra, Tehsil Nadbai, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) Through its next friends Tota Ram S/o Shri Bhajan Lal 1/1. Mahipal S/o Late Shri Tota Ram, aged about adult years, 1/2. Vijaypal S/o Late Shri Tota Ram, aged about adult years, 1/3. Surrendra S/o Late Shri Tota Ram, aged about adult years, 1/4. Ajaypal S/o Late Shri Tota Ram, aged about adult years, 1/5. Poonam D/o Late Shri Tota Ram, aged about adult years, Purshottam S/o Shri bhajan Lal, aged about 77 years, Amar singh S/o Ram Khiralri 3/1. Dharamveer S/o Late Shri Amar Singh, aged adult years, 3/2. Charan Singh S/o Late Shri Amar Singh, aged adult years, 3/3. Karamveer S/o Late Shri Amar Singh, aged adult years, 3/4. Rajenderi D/o Late Shri Amar Singh, aged adult years, 3/5. Mithala D/o Late Shri Amar Singh, aged adult years, Raghunanda S/o Shri Giriraj 4/1. Jagish Singh S/o Late Shri Raghunanda, aged adult years, (2 of 4) [CW-5673/2018] 4/2. Kharag Singh S/o Late Shri Raghunanda, aged adult years, 4/3. Devki D/o Late Shri Raghunanda, aged about adult years, All are R/o Bhidra, Tehsil Nadbai, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Zaid Khan for Mr. Zakir Hussain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jahangir Alam Salawat JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/07/2025 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short ‘the Board’), the instant writ petition has been preferred before this Court. 2. By passing the impugned order dated 05.01.2018, the Board has quashed and set-aside the order dated 03.12.2002 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short ‘the RAA’) and has remitted the matter back to the RAA to decide the appeals submitted by the petitioners and respondents on merits within a period of six months. 3. The RAA vide its judgment dated 03.12.2002 has quashed and set-aside the judgment dated 01.04.2000 passed by the Assistant Collector, Nadbai, District Bharatpur to hear and decide the matter afresh, after considering the evidence of both sides. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit under Section 88, 89 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (3 of 4) [CW-5673/2018] was submitted by the respondents against the petitioners, which was partly decreed by the Assistant Collector vide judgment dated 01.04.2000 and directions were issued to the Tehsildar, Nadbai to make necessary corrections with regard to the name of respondent-Temple in the revenue record of land bearing khasra Nos.170, 171, 172 and 173, but the prayer for injunction was declined. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid jugment, both parties preferred appeal before the RAA. The appeals were consolidated and decided by a common judgment dated 03.12.2002 and the matter was remitted back to the Assistant Collector to decide the matter afresh, as it was recorded in the judgment that no documentary evidence was produced on the record of the Assistant Collector that the subject land was entered into the name of respondent-Temple. Considering this material aspect of the matter, the order of remand was made. 6. It appears that both parties were not satisfied with the aforesaid remand order and approached the Board by way of filing two different appeals. Both were again heard together and decided by a common order on 05.01.2018, by which the order passed by the RAA was quashed and the RAA was directed to hear and decide the appeals on its merits. 7. Perusal of the order passed by the RAA indicates the documents produced before the Assistant Collector were not appreciated with regard to entry of the name of the respondent-Temple in the revenue record, that was the precise reason for passing an order of remand to decide the (4 of 4) [CW-5673/2018] suit afresh on the basis of the evidence led by both sides and after hearing the arguments again. 8. This Court finds that the Board has committed an error in quashing and setting aside the order passed by the RAA. The order passed by the RAA was cogent and justified. The matter is required to be decided afresh in the light of the documentary evidence submitted by both sides after hearing the arguments again. 9. Keeping in view the above, the impugned order dated 05.01.2018 passed by the Board stands quashed and set aside. The order dated 03.12.2002 passed by the RAA stands upheld. 10. The parties are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector, Nadbai on 05.08.2025. 11. It is expected from the Assistant Collector, Nadbai to make all possible endeavours to decide the mater afresh in the light of the directions issued by the RAA, expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of 18 months from the date of appearance. 12. The reason for passing such direction is that the dispute between the parties pertains to the year 1995. 13. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/89