[2025:RJ-JP:34657] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10057/2025 Prakash Chand Yadav S/o Shri Bhola Ram Yadav, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Dhani Niran Ka Ki, Village Krishna Nagar, Vpo Chhapoli, Tehsil Udaipurwati District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The District Collector, Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. 4. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Udaipurwati, Jhunjhunu. 5. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Chhapoli, Panchayat Samiti Udaipurwati, Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 29/08/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection against the impugned order/proposal has already been submitted by the petitioner before the concerned authorities. Learned counsel submits that a similar controversy has already been decided by this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Pukh Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7244/2025) on 13.05.2025, so the authorities concerned be directed to decide the objection, in light of the [2025:RJ-JP:34657] (2 of 2) [CW-10057/2025] judgment passed by this Court in the case of Pukh Raj (supra), submitted by the petitioner, expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a time frame. 2. Considering the aforesaid limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with directions to the respondents-authorities to decide the objection submitted by the petitioner against the proposal in light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Pukh Raj (supra), expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 3. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. 4. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not issued any direction/order to the respondents to decide the objections of the petitioner in a particular way. They would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/30