[2025:RJ-JP:19078] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17511/2024 Bhudei W/o Shivram, R/o Bhandor, Tehsil And District Bharatpur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Bhagwan Singh S/o Shri Nawal Singh, R/o Bhandor, Tehsil And District Bharatpur 2. Narayan Singh S/o Nawal Singh, R/o Bhandor, Tehsil And District Bharatpur 3. Shivram Singh S/o Nawal Singh, R/o Bhandor, Tehsil And District Bharatpur 4. Kamla D/o Nawal Singh W/o Dyoji, R/o Neemgaon, Tehsil Mathura (Up) 5. Rama D/o Nawal Singh W/o Darab Singh, R/o Gunsara, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.J. K.Moolchandani with Ms.Anupama JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/05/2025 1. Aggrieved by two Judgments passed by the Board of Revenue (for short, “the Board”) dated 04.07.2018 and the judgment date 04.08.2007 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short, “the RAA”), the instant writ petition has been preferred. 2. A suit under Sections 88, 89 & 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was submitted by the petitioner seeking mutation entries in her name on the basis will executed in her favour and on the basis of the same, the suit was decreed in her favour, by [2025:RJ-JP:19078] (2 of 3) [CW-17511/2024] the Sub-Divisional officer vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2002. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the respondents preferred an appeal wherein, it was observed by the RAA that the respondents were not impleaded as party in the said suit filed by the petitioner and that the will was doubtful, hence, under these circumstances, the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2002 passed by the Assistant Collector, Bharatpur was remitted to him to decide the same afresh, after providing opportunity of hearing and evidence of both sides, vide judgment dated 04.08.2007. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 04.08.2007, the petitioner preferred the second appeal under Section 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Board, who rejected the same and upheld the order passed by the RAA. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the validity of the will in question has not been challenged by the respondents before any competent Civil Court. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the judgment passed by the Assistant Collector was solely on the basis of the will which was not registered, what would have been effect of such will, that could have been decided by the Court below on the basis of the objections raised by the respondents, but without impleading them as party in the suit, the judgment dated 20.12.2002 was passed. This Court finds no illegality and perversity in the order passed by the RAA as well as passed by the board which warrants any interference of this Court. [2025:RJ-JP:19078] (3 of 3) [CW-17511/2024] 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. Stay application and all pending application(s), pending if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /15