[2025:RJ-JP:38518] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13998/2025 Dhanpat Singh Son Of Sagat Singh, Resident Of Village Talvana, Tehsil Neemrana, District Kotputli, Behror. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Umesh Son Of Ranjeet, Resident Of Village Talvana, Tehsil Neemrana, District Kotputli, Behror. 2. Dhanpyari Wife Of Late Ranjeet, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 3. Rajkumar Son Of Late Ranjeet, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 4. Sunil Son Of Late Ranjeet, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 5. Anita Wife Of Rajkumar, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 6. Kavita Wife Of Umesh, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 7. Purnima Wife Of Sunil Kumar, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 8. Maina Daughter Of Ranjeet, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 9. Sunita Daughter Of Ranjeet, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 10. Suman Daughter Of Ranjeet, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 11. Sube Singh Son Of Sagat Singh, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 12. Shanti Daughter Of Sagat Singh, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 13. Urmila Daughter Of Sagat Singh, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 14. Sher Singh Son Of Madan, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 15. Mukesh Devi Wife Of Shyam Sunder, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 16. Suman Devi Wife Of Sumer Singh, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 17. Mahaveer Son Of Madan, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 18. Sharda Devi Wife Of Dhanpat Singh, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 19. Sumitra Wife Of Somdutt, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 20. Somdutt Son Of Sagat, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil [2025:RJ-JP:38518] (2 of 3) [CW-13998/2025] Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 21. Savita Devi Wife Of Rajesh, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 22. Hoshiyar Singh Son Of Madan Yadav, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 23. Aarti Devi Wife Of Vijay Kumar, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 24. Veermati Devi Wife Of Sube Singh, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 25. Bhagwani Wife Of Madan, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 26. Leelawati Wife Sher Singh, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 27. Mukesh Devi Wife Of Shyam Sundar, Resident Of Village Talwana, Tehsil Neemaran, District Kotputli-Behror. 28. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Neemrana, District Kotpulti-Behror. 29. Sub-Registrar, Neemrana District Kotputli-Behror. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Yadav JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/09/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short “the Board”) by which the status-quo order passed by the SDO dated 13.03.2024 has been stayed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by passing the order impugned, the Board has stayed the operation of the status-quo order, which was passed against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner by the Court of SDO. Learned counsel submits that now in the garb of the same, the respondents have started raising construction and they are not arguing the matter [2025:RJ-JP:38518] (3 of 3) [CW-13998/2025] before the Board since May, 2024 and the case is deferred from one date to another, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the revision petition and the stay application attached with the same are still lying pending for its adjudication on its merits before the Board. 5. In the fitness of the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision petition and the stay application filed with the same is required to be decided by the revisional court, i.e., the Board, expeditiously as early as possible. 6. In view of above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing directions to the Board either to decide the stay application or the revision petition on the next date or if not possible on the next date then a short date be fixed but not beyond the period of four weeks. 7. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/8