Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 35887 (RAJ)

ANTAR SINGH SON OF MANGI v. GRAM PANCHAYAT MASALPUR

CW/26223/2018 · 2025-04-23

Anoop Kumar Dhand

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:17175] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26223/2018 1. Antar Singh Son of Mangi, Resident of Koripura (Masalpur) 2. Dropti Wife of Antar Singh, Resident of Koripura (Masalpur) 3. Ramkesh Son of Mangi, Resident of Koripura (Masalpur) 4. Rajendra Son of Mangi, Resident of Koripura (Masalpur) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Gram Panchayat Masalpur, Through Sarpanch Santosh Kumar Malhotra And Secretary, Pravin Kumar Sharma, Tehasil Masalpur, District Karauli. 2. District Collector, Karauli. 3. Tehasildar, Masalpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Tiwari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 23/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue. 2. At the outset, counsel for the respondents has apprised this Court that the same impugned order was challenged by other similarly situated persons namely Bhura, Gajraj and Samay by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10502/2019 and the said petition was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.07.2019. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order [2025:RJ-JP:17175] (2 of 2) [CW-26223/2018] dated 16.07.2019 was again assailed by the said persons before the Division Bench, by way of filing D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1185/2019 and the same was also rejected vide order dated 07.02.2020. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the order dated 16.07.2019 passed by Single Bench has attained finality upto the Division Bench, hence under these circumstances, instant writ petition is also liable to be rejected in the light of the order passed by Single Bench and Division Bench of this Court. 3. Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the respondents. 4. Considering the arguments raised by counsel for the respondents and looking to the fact that the order impugned dated 26.09.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue has been upheld by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as by the Division Bench in the case of Bhura (Supra) by passing the order dated 16.07.2019 and 07.02.2020 respectively, this Court finds no valid reason to take a different view. 5. Accordingly the present writ petition stands dismissed in the light of the aforesaid order. 6. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/100