SURESH SON OF SHRI BADRI PRASAD (SINCE DECEASED) v. THE BORAD OF REVENUE
WRES/393/2025 · 2025-11-14
Baljinder Singh Sandhu, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Transfer Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 48740 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 48740 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:45907-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 393/2025 IN D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.165/2024 IN S.B. Civil Misc. Restoration Application No.115/2022 IN S.B. Civil Misc. Restoration Application No.0880/2005 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3885/1999
1. Suresh Son Of Shri Badri Prasad (Since Deceased), Through Lrs- 1/1. 1/2.
2. 2/1. 2/2. 2/3. 2/4. 2/5.
3.
4. Anil S/o Late Shri Suresh, Aged About 40 Years, Shri Bhagwan S/o Late Shri Suresh, Aged About 35 Years Applicant No.1/1 to 1/2 residents of Hari Prasad Colony, Tehsil-Maniya, District Dholpur (Raj.) Bhika Ram (Since Deceased) Through LRs:- Pooran Singh S/o Late Shri Bhika Ram, Age About 37 Years, Sadhu Singh S/o Late Shri Bhika Ram, Aged About 32 Years Ramprakash S/o Late Shri Bhika Ram, Age About 32 Years, Applicant No.2/1 to 2/3 Are Residents Of Vilage Duwati, Tehsil Maniya, District Dholpur (Raj.). Smt. Guddi D/o Late Shri Bhika Ram W/o Vijay Singh, Smt. Malua D/o Late Shri Bhika Ram W/o Raghuveer, Applicant No.2/4 to 2/5 Are Residents Of Village Marvar, Tehsil Kheragarh, District Agra (UP). Sita Ram. Munna Lal. Applicant No.3 & 4 Are Sons Of Ramswroop, Resident Of Village Duwati, Tehsil And District Dholpur (Raj.). ----Appellants/Petitioners Versus
1. The Borad Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Raj.).
2. The Revenue Appellate Authority Dholpur, Head Quarter, Bharatpur, (Raj.).
3. The Assistant Collector, Dholpur, (Raj.)
4. Ramdas, Son Of Shri Murali, Resident Of Village Duwati, Tehsil And District Dholpur (Raj.)
5. Mukesh Son Of Shri Murali, Resident Of Village Duwati,
[2025:RJ-JP:45907-DB] (2 of 3) [WRES-393/2025] Tehsil And District Dholpur (Raj.)
6. Atar Son Of Shri Murali, Resident Of Village Duwati, Tehsil And District Dholpur (Raj.)
7. 7/1. 7/2. 7/3. Sobha Ram (Since Deceased), Through Lrs:- Ramnath S/o Late Shri Sobha Ram, Aged About 52 Years, Bhuri Singh S/o Late Shri Sobha Ram, Aged About 50 Years, Keshav S/o Late Shri Sobha Ram, Aged About 48 Years, Respondents No.7/1 to 7/3 Residents Of Village Duwati, Tehsil & District Dholpur (Raj.).
8. Ram Gopal S/o Kumbha, Resident Of Village Duwati, Tehsil And District Dholpur, (Raj.)
9. Rawati D/o Kumbha, Resident Of Village Duwati, Tehsil And District Dholpur, (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Chand Dewanda Mr. Ajay Poonia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Udit Sapra Mr. Dushyant Jain Ms. Shikha Sharma,AAAG HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order 14/11/2025
1. There is Special Appeal (Writ) No.165/2024 challenging the
order passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Restoration Application No.115/2022. The SAW was dismissed and restoration application has been filed after a period of 125 days.
2. A look at the order impugned in the SAW reflects that the restoration application was filed seeking restoration of the earlier application which too decided and dismissed on 28.08.2006. The said restoration application which was dismissed on 28.08.2006
[2025:RJ-JP:45907-DB] (3 of 3) [WRES-393/2025] was with respect to order passed on 05.07.2006 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3885/1999 wherein, challenge was made to the order of Board of Revenue dated 04.02.1999. The said writ petition No.3885/1999 was dismissed on 06.08.2004. Thus, the first restoration application was belated, the second restoration application was also belated, the SAW was again belated and the present restoration application for restoring the SAW is also delayed.
3. It is a case where it clearly appears that one way or the other while the applicant is not interested in arguing the case on merits has been keeping the case dismissed and then moving the restoration application one after the other. The approach of the litigant appears in filing these applications seems to be for extraneous reasons. The order of the Board of Revenue way back passed on 04.02.1999 is yet to be complied with.
4. We dismiss the restoration application for the reasons as mentioned above and impose a cost on applicant of a sum of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Child Welfare Committee, Jaipur.
5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Simple/Gaurav/44