[2025:RJ-JP:11073] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15066/2024 1. Bhikki S/o Hukma, (Since Deceased) 1/1. Anar Dei W/o Bhikki, 1/2. Ramniwas S/o Bhikki 1/3. Raghuveer S/o Bhikki 1/4. Satyendra Kumar S/o Bhikki 1/5. Ramnaresh S/o Bhikki, All are R/o Jahannagar, Tehsil Roopwas District Bharatpur. 1/6. Savitri D/o Bhikki (W/o Raju), R/o Kagrol Marg, Kheragarh, Agra (U.p.). ----Petitioners/Plaintiffs/Applicants Versus 1. Pooran Singh S/o Radha Vallabh, R/o Roopwas, Tehsil Roopwas District Bharatpur. ...Defendant-Respondent 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Roopwas, District Bharatpur. ...Defendant-Respondent 3. Charan Singh S/o Hukma, (Since Deceased) 3/1. Shrimati, W/o Charan Singh 3/2. Rajesh, S/o Charan Singh 3/3. Virendra S/o Charan Singh, Minor Through Mother Guardian Shrimati W/o Charan Singh 4. Shiv Singh S/o Hukma, All R/o Jahannagar, Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur. ----Proforma Plaintiffs-Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15067/2024 1. Bhikki S/o Hukma, (Since Deceased) 1/1. Anar Dei W/o Bhikki, 1/2. Ramniwas S/o Bhikki 1/3. Raghuveer S/o Bhikki 1/4. Satyendra Kumar S/o Bhikki 1/5. Ramnaresh S/o Bhikki, All are R/o Jahannagar, Tehsil Roopwas District Bharatpur. 1/6. Savitri D/o Bhikki (W/o Raju), R/o Kagrol Marg, Kheragarh, Agra (U.p.). ----Petitioners/Plaintiffs/Applicants Versus 1. Pooran Singh S/o Radha Vallabh, R/o Roopwas, Tehsil Roopwas District Bharatpur. ...Defendant-Respondent [2025:RJ-JP:11073] (2 of 4) [CW-15066/2024] 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Roopwas, District Bharatpur. ...Defendant-Respondent 3. Charan Singh S/o Hukma, (Since Deceased) 3/1. Shrimati, W/o Charan Singh 3/2. Rajesh, S/o Charan Singh 3/3. Virendra S/o Charan Singh, Minor Through Mother Guardian Shrimati W/o Charan Singh 4. 5. Shiv Singh S/o Hukma, All R/o Jahannagar, Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur. Hukma S/o Talpee (since deceased) 5/1 Bhagwati S/o Hukma W/o Mansingh Kachvaya, R/o Saidpura Tehsil Roopwas District Bharatpur 5/2 Anardei S/o Hukma W/o Roshanlal Darkee, Tehsil Saidpur Tehsil Roopwas District Dholpur 5/3 Narayani D/o Hukma W/o Sheodan Singh R/o Lajja Ki Ghanti Tehsil Saidpur District Dholpur ----Proforma Plaintiffs-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mehrish with Mr. Rakesh Saini For Respondent(s) : Ms. Gunjan Chawla for Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC Ms. Supriya Saxena with Mr. Utkarsh Mittal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 11/03/2025 Since, these writ petitions arise out of the common orders passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity, ‘Board of Revenue’) deciding two review/revision petitions, they have been heard together and are being decided vide this common order. The relevant facts in brief are that Shri Bhikki, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners (for brevity, ‘petitioners’) along with proforma respondents no.3 and 4, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the [2025:RJ-JP:11073] (3 of 4) [CW-15066/2024] respondent no.1 and the proforma respondent no.2. Another suit for permanent injunction qua the self same property was filed by the respondent no.1 against the petitioners, the respondents no.3 and 4 and other co-defendants. The Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Roopwas (Bharatpur) (for brevity, ‘trial Court’), vide its order dated 12.01.2012, while dismissing the temporary injunction application filed by the respondent no.1, allowed the temporary injunction application filed by the petitioners and directed the parties to maintain status quo. The respondent no.1 preferred two appeals no.06/2012 and 07/2012 against the order dated 12.01.2012 which came to be allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur (for brevity, ‘RAA’) vide order dated 07.05.2015 and the petitioners alongwith other co-defendants were restrained not to interfere in the property purchased by the respondent no.1 through registered sale deed. The revision petitions preferred thereagainst by the petitioners as also the review petitions have been dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 13.06.2022 and the order dated 28.05.2024 respectively. Assailing the orders, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since, their suit for declaration and permanent injunction is pending consideration and even the RAA has made an observation that claim of the petitioners that their father had no authority to sell the entire ancestral land in favour of the respondent no.1 is subjudice, no temporary injunction could have been granted against them. He, therefore, prays that the writ petitions be allowed, the orders impugned passed by the Board of [2025:RJ-JP:11073] (4 of 4) [CW-15066/2024] Revenue be quashed and set aside and the order dated 12.01.2012 passed by the trial Court be restored. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 supported the orders impugned. Heard. Considered. Indisputably, the respondent no.1 has purchased the subject property from its recorded khatedar-father of the petitioners, through a registered sale deed. Since, the RAA as also the Board of Revenue have concurrently recorded a factual finding that under the registered sale deed, he has also obtained physical possession of the subject property, in the considered opinion of this Court, they did not err in issuing a temporary injunction in his favour. This factual finding has not been demonstrated to be suffering from any perversity or illegality by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In view thereof, this Court finds no justification, under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with the well reasoned concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts based on cogent material on record and the sound legal principles. Resultantly, these writ petitions are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J DIKSHA /83-84