Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27644 (RAJ)

SUGANDHA LAND DEVELOPERS COMP v. STATE REVENU DEPARTMENTORS

CW/5896/2016 · 2025-03-05

Sudesh Bansal

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:9760] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5896/2016 Sugandha Land Developers Company Ltd. Through Its Director Kailash Soni S/o Shri Bahadur Soni, P.no. 30-31, Jagatpura, Mahesh Colony, Distt. Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Chaksu, Distt. Jaipur. 3. Sub Registrar, Chaksu, Distt. Jaipur. 4. Tehsildar, Tehsil Chaksu, Chaksu, Distt. Jaipur. 5. M/s Vian Infrastructure Limited Through Its Chairman And Founder Director Of The Company Surya Kirt, 2-H, Second Floor, Dcm Building, Barakhambha Road, New Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Joshi For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 05/03/2025 1. Instant writ petition was filed by and on behalf of petitioner way back on 19.03.2016 with following prayer:- "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition with costs and further be pleased to direct the respondents to the following effect:- (i) Direct to the respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 deleted or remove the entries made by the respondents in the revenue record of the land bearing Khasra No.5467 to 5513 and bearing [2025:RJ-JP:9760] (2 of 2) [CW-5896/2016] Khasra No.6354/12078 measuring 9.47 hectare situated at Village Chaksu, Distt. Jaipur in pursuance of the letter dated 27.07.2007 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Crime Branch, New Delhi. (ii) Direct to the respondents registered the sale deeds of the petitioner company in relation to the land in dispute. (iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. During course of arguments, counsel for petitioner admits that petitioner has an alternative remedy to seek aforereferred prayer before the Revenue Court/ Civil Court, hence, he seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition, to avail the alternative remedy as per his legal advice. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty as prayed for. 4. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/78