[2025:RJ-JP:21113] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19703/2024 Suresh Chand Choudhary S/o Shri Shankar Lal, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Fatehpura Via And Tehsil Pisagan, District Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Collector District Ajmer. 2. The SDO, Tehsil Pisagan, District Ajmer (Raj.) 3. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Pisagan, District Ajmer (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Vyas For Respondent(s) : Ms. Gunjan Chawla for Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/05/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents to allow conversion of land of the petitioner from agricultural to commercial. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose has been rejected by the District Magistrate giving reference of pendency of an appeal before the Court. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is not a party to any litigation in any competent court of law. Learned counsel submits that the respondents by giving reference of some Civil First Appeal bearing No.518/2023 pending before this Court has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner wherein also the petitioner is not a party and no stay is operating in the said appeal, hence under these circumstances, the respondents be directed to pass a fresh order. [2025:RJ-JP:21113] (2 of 2) [CW-19703/2024] 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that one Chimna Ram has submitted an objection before the District Collector giving reference of S.B. Civil First Appeal No.518/2023 (Chimna Ram Vs. Parsi Devi) pending before this Court. Learned counsel submits that since the dispute is lying pending before this Court, hence under these circumstances, the conversion order cannot be passed. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the impugned order dated 11.06.2024 indicates that the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the District Magistrate by giving weightage finding that some appeal is pending before this Court. It appears that without perusing the documents and without giving reference of any matter, straightaway the order has been passed without application of mind. 6. In view of above, the writ petition stands disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents again by way of filing appropriate application. 7. In case, any such application is submitted by the petitioner within a period of 15 days from today, the respondents would decide the said application strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of three months thereafter. 8. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/74