HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9512/2025 1. Prabhati Devi Wife Of Late Shri Babu Lal, Aged About 69 Years, 2. Mohan Lal Son Of Shri Babulal, Aged About 50 Years, Both are resident Of Ashawaton Ki Dhani, Sawai Gaitor, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Shri Kalyan Realty Llp, Through Partner Rajendra Kumar Jain Son Of Late Shri Bhanwarlal Jain, Address B-19, Lal Bahadur Nagar, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. 2. Prabhu Son Of Laxman, Adopted Son Of Laadu, Resident Of Bhonawaton Ki Dhani, Sawai Gaitor, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Ramchandra Son Of Prabhulal, Resident Of Bhonawaton Ki Dhani, Sawai Gaitor, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Rameshwar Son Of Prabhulal, Resident Of Bhonawaton Ki Dhani, Sawai Gaitor, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.) 5. Ramsharan Son Of Prabhulal, Resident Of Bhonawaton Ki Dhani, Sawai Gaitor, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.) 6. Surajnarayan Son Of Prabhulal, Resident Of Bhonawaton Ki Dhani, Sawai Gaitor, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.) 7. Chandra Prakash Son Of Prabhulal, Resident Of Bhonawaton Ki Dhani, Sawai Gaitor, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.) 8. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Secretary, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. 9. Land Management Commissioner, Jaipur, Gopal Badi, Khasa Kothi, Jaipur. 10. Sub-Registrar Ii, Sanganer Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. (2 of 3) [CW-9512/2025] 11. State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Sanganer, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lucky Sharma and Mr. Ayush Goyal For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/07/2025 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.04.2025 and 04.06.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short ‘the Board’), the instant writ petition has been preferred. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a revision petition against the impugned order dated 23.07.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer-II, Sanganer, Jaipur was submitted by the respondents before the Board, wherein, the counsel for the petitioners pleaded on instructions. Counsel submits that taking note of this material aspect, the revision petition has been admitted and the record of the Subordinate Court has been summoned and fresh notices have been issued to the petitioners. Counsel submits that an application for recall of the aforesaid order dated 25.04.2025 was submitted, however, the said application has been rejected, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. (3 of 3) [CW-9512/2025] 4. Perusal of the orders dated 25.04.2025 as well as the order dated 04.06.2025 reflect that simply the revision petition has been admitted and the record of the Subordinate Court has been summoned after issuing notices to the petitioners and all respective parties. No adverse order has been passed against the petitioners. But looking to the fact that the revision petition has been admitted and the record has been summoned and the respective parties have also been served, the Board is directed to decide the revision petition on its merits expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 5. With the aforesaid observations, 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/9