Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23524 (RAJ)

RAMESH v. STATE REVENUE DEPARTMENT ORS

CW/13133/2017 · 2025-01-10

Avneesh Jhingan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:1682] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13133/2017 Ramesh Son Of Ramdev, R/o Village Chamanpura, Post Bamor Tehsil And District Tonk, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The District Collector Tonk, District Tonk 3. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tonk 4. Tehsildar Tonk, District Tonk 5. Bank Of Baroda, Branch Office, Lic Building, Opposite Sabji Mandi, Tonk, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jeetendra Mishra Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 10/01/2025 1. On 08.01.2025, none appears for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents made a statement that auction on which basis the mutation had sought was cancelled. 2. The order dated 08.01.2025 is reproduced:- “1. This petition was filed seeking directions to the respondents for opening of the mutation in favour of the petitioner of the land purchased in auction. 2. As per reply filed by the respondents No.1 to 4, the auction in which the petitioner had successful, was cancelled and re-auction was ordered. [2025:RJ-JP:1682] (2 of 2) [CW-13133/2017] 3. None appears on behalf of the petitioner inspite of two pass-overs. 4. Put up on 10.01.2025 at the top of cause- list.” 3. None appears for the petitioner inspite of two pass-overs. 4. The petition is dismissed as infructuous. 5. The petitioner shall be at liberty to move an application for revival of petition, in case, there is a factual discrepancy in the statement made by learned counsel for respondent. (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/164