[2025:RJ-JP:11425] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2024/2025 Manish Kumar S/o Mahesh Kumar, R/o Mandha, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar ----Petitioner/Defendant Versus 1. Late Mahesh Kumar S/o Late Amarchand Jain, R/o Mandha (Surera), Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar 1/1. Abhishek Kumar Jain S/o Late Mahesh Kumar 1/2. Amit Kumar Jain S/o Late Mahesh Kumar 1/3. Manish Kumar Jain S/o Late Mahesh Kumar 1/4. Anil Kumar Jain S/o Late Mahesh Kumar 1/5. Shobha Devi Jain W/o Late Mahesh Kumar All are R/o Aabad Shobhakunj, Bazar Samiti Ke Pichhe, Sandalpur Purab, Post Mahendru, Tehsil And District Patana, Bihar Respondents/Plaintiff 2. Kamla Devi D/o Gendalal, R/o Mir Marke, Sufi Sahab Lane, Kamar Patti Masjid, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati (Assam) 3. Rampyari Devi D/o Gendalal, R/o Babulal Toil, Budu Ranchi (Jharkhand) Mir Marke, Sufi Sahab Lane, Kamar Patti Masjid, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati, (Assam) 4. Ashish Patni S/o Bhagchand Jain, R/o Omi Sadu Building, 2 Floor, Ashok Path, Behind Sadu Nursing Home, Tedium Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand. All Are Through Power Of Attorney Shravan Kumar Sevda Son Of Jodharam, R/o Sevda Ki Dhani, Bharija, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar. 5. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bharija, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar 6. Patwari, Patwar Halka, Bharija, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar 7. Sub Registrar, Registrar Office Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar 8. Tahsildar, Tehsil Office Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AG assisted by Ms. Harshita Thakral Ms. Dhriti Laddha Mr. Hemant Taylor with Mr. S.R. Choudhary HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL [2025:RJ-JP:11425] (2 of 3) [CW-2024/2025] Judgment / Order 12/03/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 31.07.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity “the BoR”) in Revision No.TA/4291/2024: Kamla Devi & Ors. versus Abhishek Kumar & Ors. whereby, while allowing the revision petition ex parte, order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dantaramgarh dated 08.11.2010 was set aside with a direction to it to decide the application pending consideration under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1955”) within a month. The relevant facts in brief are that Shri Mahesh Kumar-the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No.1/1 to 1/5/Plaintiff (for short “the plaintiff”) filed a suit against the petitioner/defendant No.1 and the proforma respondents No.2 to 8 for declaration, permanent injunction and correction of entries in Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (for brevity “the trial Court”) wherein, in an application filed under Section 212 of the Act of 1955, the trial Court, vide its ex parte ad-interim injunction order dated 08.11.2010, directed the parties to maintain status quo. An appeal preferred thereagainst by some of the respondents came to be dismissed as not maintainable by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar vide its order dated 20.05.2024. However, the revision petition preferred thereagainst by the proforma respondents No.2 to 4 was allowed by the BoR vide its order impugned dated 31.07.2024 in the manner as stated hereinabove without even issuing notice to the respondents. [2025:RJ-JP:11425] (3 of 3) [CW-2024/2025] In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this civil writ petition is disposed of in following terms as agreed by the learned counsel for the respective parties:- 1. The order dated 31.07.2024 is quashed and set aside. 2. The trial Court is expected to decide the pending application under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 expeditiously. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. This writ petition reflects a disturbing fact. Vide order impugned dated 31.07.2024, the BoR has allowed the revision petition even without issuing notice to the respondents therein. This Court comes across a number of such cases on and off wherein, the revision petitions are being allowed/partly allowed by the BoR even without issuing notice to the respondents. This approach is highly objectionable and unwarranted as it militates against the cardinal principle of natural justice. In view thereof, this Court requested the assistance of the learned Advocate General and with his able assistance, the following direction is issued:- 1. The Registrar, BoR is directed to convey to the Chairperson/all members not to allow/partly allow the revision petitions, without issuing notice to the other side. It is made clear that violation of the aforesaid direction in future may be viewed seriously. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/59