Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4336 (RAJ)

NAND KUMAR SON OF KHETARAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/1218/2021 · 2025-07-22

Chandra Prakash Shrimali, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:27440-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1218/2021 1. Nand Kumar Son of Khetaram, Aged About 66 Years, Resident of Village Marigsar, Teh. and District Jhunjhunu. 2. Om Prakash Son of Chimna Ram, Resident of Village Marigsar, Teh. and District Jhunjhunu. 3. Shree Ram Son of Baloo Ram, Aged About 54 Years, Resident of Village Marigsar, Tehasil and District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) 4. Saheeram Son of Balaram, Resident of Village Marigsar, Tehasil And Distt. Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) 5. Ramniwas Son of Harlal, Aged About 51 Years, Resident of Village Marigsar, Tehasil And Distt. Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. Mining Engineer, Mining Department, Road No. 2 Man Nagar, Jhunjhunu, Raj. 3. Sub- Divisional Officer, Jhunjhunu. 4. Collector, Jhunjhunu. 5. Jai Maa Jamuwai Mines and Minerals, through Partner Darshan Singh son of Keshri Singh, Resident of Marigsar, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). 6. Darshan Singh Son of Keshri Singh, Resident of Marigsar, Tehsil and District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv. Assisted by Mr. Lokesh Tiwari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Harsh Vardhan Katara & Mr. Lalit Bhardwaj Ms. Shikha Sharma on behalf of Mr. G.S. Gill, Additional Advocate General [2025:RJ-JP:27440-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-1218/2021] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Order 22/07/2025 Both the counsels are at ad idem that presently there is no cause of action which requires to be adjudicated by this Court. However, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the question of law, if any raised in the present writ petition may be allowed to be raised, if so arises in future. This Court accordingly, disposed of this writ petition leaving open the questions to be examined, if needs so arises in future. (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J GAURAV SHARMA/Garima/87