HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7552/2025 1. Prabhu @ Prabhat, S/o Poora, R/o Village Aakera Doongar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur Through His Legal Representatives. (Since Deceased) 1/1. Babulal Meena, S/o Prabhat Meena, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Aakera Doongar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Arjun, S/o Nathu, R/o Village Aakera Doongar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 2. Surajmal, S/o Nathu, R/o Village Aakera Doongar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 3. Mangalchand, S/o Nathu, R/o Village Aakera Doongar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 4. Ratan, S/o Raamu, R/o Village Aakera Doongar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 5. Buddhiprakash, S/o Govindram, R/o Village Aakera Doongar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 6. Narayan, S/o Govindram, R/o Village Aakera Doongar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 7. Sitaram, S/o Govindram, R/o Village Aakera Doongar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 8. Prabhati, W/o Govindram, R/o Village Aakera Doongar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 9. Sujya, S/o Poora, R/o Village Aakera Doongar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 10. Badri, S/o Maangu, R/o Village Aakera Doongar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 11. Laxma, W/o Maangu, R/o Village Aakera Doongar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 12. Naanu, S/o Poora, R/o Village Aakera Doongar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 13. Rampal, S/o Naanga, R/o Village Aakera Doongar, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. 14. Sub-Registrar, Amer, District Jaipur. (2 of 4) [CW-7552/2025] 15. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Amer District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek B. Sharma Mr. Lakshay Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Singh Sherawat JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/07/2025 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”), the instant writ petition has been preferred before this Court. 2. By passing the impugned order dated 01.04.2025, the Board has admitted the revision petition submitted by the respondents against the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (hereinafter referred to as “SDO”) and 28.11.2024 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as “RAA”) by which the stay application submitted by the respondents was rejected and the appeal was also rejected. 3. While, admitting the aforesaid revision petition submitted by the respondents, an interim order has been passed directing the parties to maintain status-quo over the site as well as in the revenue record and the case was posted for 14.07.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision petition has been preferred against the a person and the same is not maintainable. Learned counsel submits that once the concurrent finding has been recorded by the two Courts below, there was no reason or occasion available with the Board to pass (3 of 4) [CW-7552/2025] interim order in favour of the respondents, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that till date no final order has been passed and only interim protection has been granted by passing the interim order directing the parties to maintain status-quo over the site as well as in the revenue record and now the next date fixed before the Board is 14.07.2025, for arguments. Learned counsel submits that, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that a suit for declaration of khatedari rights and permanent injunction has been submitted by the respondents before the SDO along-with temporary injunction application, but the temporary injunction application submitted by the respondents was rejected by the SDO vide order dated 29.08.2019 against which a miscellaneous appeal was preferred before the RAA, however, the same was also rejected vide order dated 28.11.2024. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the respondents approached the Board by way of filing revision petition wherein an interim order has been passed on 01.04.2025 asking the parties to maintain status-quo over the site as well as in the revenue record. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the revision petition is still subjudiced before the Board for its adjudication on (4 of 4) [CW-7552/2025] its merits, this Court deems it just and proper to issue direction to the Board to make all possible endeavours to decide the revision petition on its merits on the next date, i.e., 14.07.2025 and, if not possible, then by posting a short date to decide the same, strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/12