HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9755/2025 Mohan Lal S/o Om Prakash, R/o Village Jodiya, Tehsil Kishangarh Bass, District Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Vinod, S/o Shishpal 2. Mahendra, S/o Shishpal 3. Lokesh, S/o Shishpal 4. Saroj, D/o Shishpal 5. Sharmila, D/o Shishpal 6. Naveen, S/o Narpal 7. Yogesh, S/o Narpal 8. Smt. Chhoti Devi W/o Parpal, All Are R/o Village Jodiya, Tehsil Kishangarh Bass, District Alwar. 9. Smt. Rajesh, W/o Billu @ Rohtash 10. Annu, S/o Billu @ Rohtash 11. Monu, S/o Billu @ Rohtash 12. Koshlya, D/o Netram 13. Sneshta, D/o Netram 14. Meera Devi, D/o Netram 15. Sarti, W/o Nar Singh 16. Krishan, S/o Nar Singh 17. Vinod, S/o Nar Singh 18. Ashok, S/o Nar Singh 19. Santosh, D/o Nar Singh 20. Dayanand, S/o Jagdish 21. Urmila, D/o Jagdish 22. Bahadur, S/o Om Prakash 23. Saroj, D/o Om Prakash 24. Savita, D/o Om Prakash 25. Chameli, W/o Om Prakash 26. Hari Singh, S/o Shadi 27. Smt. Tarawati, W/o Badlu (2 of 3) [CW-9755/2025] 28. Mintu, S/o Badlu 29. Kavita, D/o Badlu 30. Savita, D/o Badlu 31. Praveen Kumar, S/o Prahalad 32. Manju, W/o Kuldeep 33. Chandrakala, D/o Shyotaj @ Shyalal 34. Jitiya, S/o Ram Singh 35. Babulal S/o Netram, All Are R/o Village Jodiya, Tehsil Kishangarh Bass, District Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/07/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short ‘the Board’), by which the prayer of the petitioner for passing interim order has been declined. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant case is a case of reversal finding. Counsel submits that the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed by the Assistant Collector, Kishangarh-Bas, District Alwar vide judgment and decree dated 10.06.1987, which was assailed by other side after a delay of 29 years before the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short ‘the RAA’) and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 19.05.2025 against which second appeal has been preferred by the petitioner before the Board along with (3 of 3) [CW-9755/2025] the stay application. Counsel submits that the appeal as well as the stay application is still lying pending for adjudication before the Board on its merits and during pendency of the aforesaid, a prayer was made by the petitioner for passing appropriate order for interim relief, which has been declined by passing impugned order dated 17.06.2025, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Looking to the fact that the stay application submitted by the petitioner is still lying pending for its adjudication on its merits before the Board, it is expected from the Board to decide the said stay application expeditiously within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The Board is expected to hear and decide the stay application after hearing the arguments of both sides, without being influenced by the order passed by this Court, strictly on its merits. 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. 6. For a period of four weeks, no third party rights be created. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/32