[2025:RJ-JP:21743] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8018/2025 Phoolchand Choudhary Son of Shri Daulat Ram Choudhary, aged about 56 years R/o Vill.- Khusar, Tehsil Sanganer, District - Jaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Omshiv Properties Pvt. Ltd., Office At Choudhary Steal, 12 Mile, Tonk Road, Sriram Ki Nangal, Through Director Phoolchand Choudhary Son Of Shri Daulat Ramm Choudhary, R/o Vill.- Khusar, Tehsil Sanganer, District - Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Ladu Ram Son Of Chunya @ Chunnilal, Resident Of Vill. Ramnagriya, Teshil Sanganer District Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Heeranand Ravjani Son Of Shri Bhulchand Motiram Ravjani, Resident Of A-3, Ravjani Vill Saket Colony, Adrash Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Smt. Hema Ravjani Wife Of Shri Heeranand Ravjani, Resident Of A-3, Ravjani Vill Saket Colony, Adrash Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.). 5. Deputy Commissioner Zone - 9, Jaipur Development Authority, Office At Indira Circle, Jln Marg, Jaipur (Raj.). 6. Tehsildar, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aatish Jain For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 23/05/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the Board of Revenue (for short, ‘the Board’) for expeditious disposal of the revision petition No. 2664/2024. [2025:RJ-JP:21743] (2 of 3) [CW-8018/2025] 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 preferred a revision petition before the Board against the order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur wherein an interim order was passed. Counsel submits that in the aforesaid matter, arguments of both the parties were heard finally by the Board and judgment was kept reserved on 19.09.2024. Counsel submits that on the next date i.e. 30.09.2024 when the matter was posted for pronouncement of judgment, an application was submitted by the respondents for taking certain documents on record. Hence, the matter was released and posted for the next date i.e. 14.10.2024 for further arguments. Thereafter, several dates were posted for the aforesaid purpose, and the arguments were again heard finally and the judgment was kept reserved on 09.01.2025. Counsel submits that thereafter, the matter was again released on 16.01.2025 and posted the same for 24.01.2025 for rehearing and thereafter several dates were posted for the said purpose, and again on 22.04.2025 arguments were heard and judgment was kept reserved. Counsel submits that again on 13.05.2025, the case was released for hearing the further arguments. Counsel submits that on different dates, arguments were finally heard and judgment was kept reserved since 19.09.2024 till 13.05.2025, hence under these circumstances, there was no reason or occasion available with the Board to release the matter for further arguments. Counsel submits that the case was deferred from one date to another at the instance of the revisionalist/ respondents in whose favour the interim order is operating and the sole purpose and object of the revisionalist/respondents is to delay the disposal of [2025:RJ-JP:21743] (3 of 3) [CW-8018/2025] the revision petition, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the aforesaid order-sheets indicate that w.e.f 19.09.2024 till 13.05.2025, on several occasions, arguments were heard finally and the judgment was kept reserved but instead of pronouncing the judgment, the matter was again released and posted for final arguments. Such a practice adopted by the Board is not appreciable, rather the same is liable to be deprecated. 5. It is the settled proposition of law that when final arguments are heard by any Court in any matter, it is expected from the Court concerned to pronounce the judgment within a reasonable time but here in the instant case, instead of deciding the matter, again and again the matter was listed for re-hearing the further arguments, and after reserving the same, again and again the matter was released from pronouncement of the judgment. 6. This Court could have passed an order against the Presiding Officer for such orders/acts which are not warranted but instead of doing so, one more opportunity is granted to the Presiding Officer to hear the arguments on the next date and decide the matter expeditiously on the next date or by fixing a short date. 7. The present writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/26