Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17811 (RAJ)

KANHAIYA LAL v. B O R AJMER AND ORS

CW/7045/2013 · 2025-04-22

Anoop Kumar Dhand

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:16986] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7045/2013 Kanhaiya Lal S/o Ram Niwas aged about 62 years, Resident of Pahadi at present Resident of D-120, Indra Colony, Niwai, Distt. Tonk (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Board of Revenue, Ajmer. 2. Geeta D/o Ram Sahai w/o Gulab Chand Resident of Pahadi at present Resident of J-69, Bhagat Singh Colony, Niwai, Distt. Tonk (Raj.) 3. Banwari Lal s/o Laddulal Mahajan, Resident of Pahadi, Tehsil Niwai, Distt. Tonk. 4. Gulab Chand S/o Heeralal Resident of Pahadi at present Resident of J-69, Bhagat Singh Colony, Niwai, Distt. Tonk 5. Tehsildar, Niwai, Distt. Tonk (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jain Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC Mr. Amit Sharma for Mr. Rameshwar Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 22/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment dated 15.03.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short ‘the Board’) by which the appeal preferred by the respondent No.2 was partly allowed and the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2010 and 08.09.2009 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Sub-Divisional Officer, Niwai were quashed and set-aside and the matter was remitted to decide the [2025:RJ-JP:16986] (2 of 2) [CW-7045/2013] findings recorded on Point Nos.8 & 9 of the impugned judgment afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the sides. 2. The aforesaid order was passed by the Board way-back in the month of March, 2013. More than 12 years have passed, the suit might have been decided and fresh orders might have been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in the intervening period. 3. In case, the suit is still lying pending for adjudication before the Sub-Divisional Officer, it is expected from the Court concerned to speed up the proceedings of the said suit and decide the same expeditiously, strictly in terms of the directions issued by the Board. 4. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stand disposed of. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/50