[2025:RJ-JP:20517] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7864/2013 1- Idu son of Bhav Singh 2- Evaj son of Bhav Singh 3- Rafiq son of Chandrabhan 4- Mubin son of Chandrabhan All resident of Village Mannaka Tehsil and District Alwar. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Board of Revenue Ajmer. 2. Revenue Appellate Authority Alwar. 3. Sub divisional officer Alwar. 4. Murti Mandir Shri Bihari Ji maharaj Situated at Mohalla Bhikam Syed, Near Ramji Ki Kui Alwar through Shyam Bahadur Adopted son of Brij Narain Pujari and Manager Murti Mandir Shri Bihari Ji Maharaj. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7865/2013 1- Idu son of Bhav Singh 2- Evaj son of Bhav Singh 3- Rafiq son of Chandrabhan 4- Mubin son of Chandrabhan All resident of Village Mannaka Tehsil and District Alwar. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Board of Revenue Ajmer. 2. Revenue Appellate Authority Alwar 3. Sub divisional officer Alwar. 4. Murti Mandir Shri Bihari Ji maharaj Situated at Mohalla Bhikam Syed, Near Ramji Ki Kui Alwar through Shyam Bahadur Adopted son of Brij Narain Pujari and Manager Murti Mandir Shri Bihari Ji Maharaj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bipin Gupta For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Agarwal Mr. Laxmikant [2025:RJ-JP:20517] (2 of 3) [CW-7864/2013] JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 15/05/2025 1. By way of filing these writ petitions, a challenge has been led to the order dated 17.01.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) by which the revision petition submitted by the petitioners has been rejected. 2. The contents of these writ petitions indicate that a suit under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1955”) was submitted by the petitioners along-with an application under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 wherein an order was passed and a receiver was appointed till final disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred by the respondents before the Appellate Authority, which was partly allowed whereby the petitioner was allowed to cultivate the land at the cost of Rs.25,000/- per bigha every year and deposit the said amount as security with the court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners approached the Board by way of filing revision petition. The revision petition submitted by the petitioners was rejected but the revision petition submitted by the respondents was allowed and the petitioners were directed to deposit the aforesaid amount calculated per bigha every year. Learned counsel submits that the suit filed by the petitioner in the year 1985 is pending for adjudication, so in the interest of both the parties, appropriate directions be issued. [2025:RJ-JP:20517] (3 of 3) [CW-7864/2013] 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the amount so ordered by the Courts below has not been deposited by the petitioners. 5. This Court is not going into the controversy, but looking to the fact that the suit is lying pending for adjudication before the Court of Assistant Collector, Alwar since last more than three decades, thus, in the interest of justice and in the interest of both parties, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of these writ petitions by issuing directions to the Trial Court i.e., court of Assistant Collector to make all possible endeavours to decide the suit (pending, if any) expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of one and a half years. 6. These writ petitions stand disposed of. Stay applications as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/47-48