[2025:RJ-JP:19466] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11835/2022 1. Raghuveer Singh Son Of Banshidhar (Deceased), Through L.rs. 2. Rakesh Son Of Raghuveer Singh, Resident Of Village Dudhva, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar. 3. Mantra Wife Of Raghuveer Singh, Resident Of Village Dudhva, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar. 4. Dimple Rani Daughter Of Raghuveer Singh, Resident Of Village Dudhva, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Radheshyam Son Of Kishna Ram, Resident Of Village Dudhva, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Sub-Registrar, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar. 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar. 4. Nand Lal Son Of Banshidhar, Resident Village Dudhva, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.). 5. Sitaram Son Of Banshidhar, Resident Village Dudhva, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.). 6. Manju Devi Daughter Of Banshidhar Wife Of Sushil Kumar, Resident Of Kajod Kirana Store, Mangi Gate, Navalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hem Singh For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/05/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short, “the Board”) by which the revision petition [2025:RJ-JP:19466] (2 of 2) [CW-11835/2022] preferred by the petitioner before the Rajasthan Appellate Authority (for short, “the RAA”) has been rejected. 2. The RAA vide its order dated 29.03.2019 quashed and set aside the order dated 29.05.2015 passed by Assistant Collector by which the application filed by the respondents under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was rejected, and while allowing the appeal filed by the respondents, a direction was issued to the parties by RAA to maintain status quo with regard to site and record. 3. While passing the imugned order dated 28.03.2022, a direction has been issued to the Assistant Collector to make all possible endeavours to decide the suit expeditiously, as the suit is lying pending before the trial Court since 2013. 4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order to maintain status quo passed in favour of the respondent is operating since 2016 which should not be disturbed after passing of six years but looking to the fact that the suit has remained pending since the year 2013, this Court deems it just and proper to reiterate the direction issued by the Board. The Assistant Collector is directed to make all possible endeavours to decide the suit expeditiously, as early as possible within a period of two years from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 5. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 6. The stay application and pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J MAHIMA/8