[2025:RJ-JP:5980] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Review Petition No.81/2017 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3464/2013 1. 1/1 1/2 1/3 1/4 1/5 1/5/1 1/5/2 1/5/3 1/5/4 1/6 1/6/1 1/6/2 1/6/3 1/7 1/7/1 1/7/2 1/7/3 Mst. Hastoodi, D/o Shri Ganga Ram Jat (Deceased), Through Lrs: Rameshwar, S/o Lt Shri Laxman Jat Karan, S/o Lt Shri Laxman Jat Ramswarup, S/o Lt Shri Laxman Jat Smt. Ugami, D/o Lt Shri Laxman Jat Ratan, S/o Lt Shri Laman Jat (Deceased) Through Lrs: Kavari, W/o Lt Shri Ratan Raju, S/o Lt Shri Ratan Ramniwas, S/o Lt Shri Ratan Rasaal, D/o Lt Shri Ratan Amarchand, (Deceased), Through LRs: Smt. Lada, W/o Lt. Shri Amarchand Suresh, S/o Lt. Shri Amarchand Sanju, D/o Lt Shri Amarchand 1/6/2 and 1/6/3 Are Minors Represented Through Their Mother/Natural Guardian Smt Lada, W/o Lt Shri Amarchand Lt Shri Hanuman (Deceased) Through LRs Ganga, W/o Lt Shri Hanuman Rajendra, S/o Lt Shri Hanuman Kartar, S/o Lt Shri Hanuman 1/7/2 and 1/7/3 are Minors Represented Through Their Mother/Natural Guardian Smt Ganga All R/o Village Mundoti, Tehsil Kishangarh District Ajmer (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Board of Revenue Ajmer 2. Revenue Appellate Authority Ajmer 3. Sub Division Officer Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.). 4. State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.). 5. Chhitar S/o Sheoram Jat, R/o Village Mundoti, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.). [2025:RJ-JP:5980] (2 of 4) [WRW-81/2017] 6. 6/1 6/2 6/3 6/4 6/5 Harji S/o Sh. Sheoram, (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs. Smt. Bhorri W/o Late Sh. Harji Jat Satya Narain S/o Late Sh. Harji Jat Sharwan S/o Late Sh. Harji Jat Respondent No.6 to 8 resident of Village Mudoti, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.) Ratatni D/o Late Sh. Harji W/o Sh. Gheesuram Jat R/o Bandar Sindari, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.) Supyar D/o Late Sh. Harji Jat W/o Sh. Sharwan Lal Jat R/o Bandar Sindri, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.) 7. Sheoji S/o Shoeram Jat, R/o Village Mundoti Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.) 8. 8/1 8/2 8/3 8/4 Ratna S/o Harji Lal, (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs Mandraj D/o Ratna Jat Ramraj D/o Ratna Jat Hemraj S/o Ratna Jat Chena S/o Ratna Jat minor through guardian brother Hemraj Jat respondent No.8/1 to 8/4, All resident of village Mundoti Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak For Respondent(s) : Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mahaveer Singh Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma Ms. Gunjan Chawla and Ms. Priyamnada Singh for Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 11/02/2025 This petition is filed seeking review of the judgment dated 19.01.2017 passed by this Court whereby, the writ petition filed by the petitioner Mst. Hastoodi (died during its pendency) (for [2025:RJ-JP:5980] (3 of 4) [WRW-81/2017] brevity, “the petitioner”) against the order of the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer was dismissed. The relevant facts in brief are that late Shri Ganga Ram, father of the petitioner, filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants which came to be dismissed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Kishangarh vide judgment and decree dated 23.01.2002. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Ajmer vide judgment and decree dated 07.06.2002 which was unsuccessfully challenged by her before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer by way of second appeal which came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 02.08.2004. The review petition preferred thereagainst by the petitioner was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 30.01.2013. The writ petition filed by her was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 19.01.2017. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that it suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch the learned Single Judge has observed that the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority reflects availability of the documents to show relinquishment of right by her father and document to this effect exists in the record of the SDO Court whereas, no such document is part of the record of the SDO Court. He, therefore, prays that the review petition be allowed, the judgment impugned dated 19.01.2017 be reviewed and the writ petition be restored to its original number. [2025:RJ-JP:5980] (4 of 4) [WRW-81/2017] Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.7 and learned counsels for the remaining respondents, opposing the prayer, prayed for dismissal of the review petition. Heard. Considered. Upon perusal of the original record of the SDO Court, this Court is satisfied that finding of the Revenue Appellate Authority qua availability of the relinquishment deed is not perverse and is based on record inasmuch as, a certified copy of the application dated 23.01.1968 submitted by Shri Ganga Ram and duly attested by two witnesses wherein, it is averred that he has no objection if the subject land is mutated in favour of his brother as their father had, during his life time, partitioned the properties and had given him a separate set of land which is under his khatedari and possession, is part of the record. In view thereof, this Court is not persuaded to record a finding that judgment dated 19.01.2017 suffers from any error apparent on the face of record so as to warrant its review. Resultantly, this review petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J YOGESH/308-S