[2025:RJ-JP:1181] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2772/2000 Heeralal Bairwa son of Sukha, resident of Village Madhosinghpura, Tehsil and District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the Govt. Revenue Department Rajasthan Jaipur. 2. District Collector Sawaimadhopur. 3. Shri Fateh Singh Rathore (since deceased) through his legal heirs 3/1. Smt. Khem Kanwar wife of Late Fateh Singh Rathore 3/2. Goverdhan Singh Rathore son of Late Fateh Singh Rathore 3/3. Padmini D/o Late Shri Fateh Singh Rathore 3/4. Jaya D/o Late Shri Fateh Singh Rathore All residents of Madhosinghpura, District Sawaimadhopur 4. M/s. EIH Limited Company Registered Office 4, Mangolae, Kolkatta 700001. 5. Shri Nizam son of Shri Jamal Mistri, resident of Fatima Manzil, Amber Colony, Unghna District Suraj. 6. Shri Amin son of Mohd. Saddiq Quereshi, aged 42 years, resident of 901, Koke Krest, Model Town, Char Bunglaw, Andheri West Mumbai Maharashtra 7. Shri Amin son of Badruddin Quereshi, House No.35, amber Colony, Udhana, Gujarat 8. Harun son of Nizam Mistri, resident of 179, Fathima Amber Manzir, Udhana, Suraj, Gujarat. 9. Mohd. Umar son of Shri Nizam Mistri, resident of 179, Fathima Manzil, amber Colony, Udhana Surat Gujarat ---Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Abhimanyu Singh Sirohi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vikram Singh, Adv. & Mr.Aditya Sharma, Adv. for Ms.Suruchi Kasliwal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 08/01/2025 1. On 08.02.2022 the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Abhimanyu Singh Sirohi submits that there is no instruction from his clients. He tried to contact his clients on various occasions but there has been no response. The matter is pertaining to the year 2000 [2025:RJ-JP:1181] (2 of 2) [CW-2772/2000] Let the matter be listed in the first week of March, 2002, an appropriate decision will be taken on the next date.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of best efforts, is not getting any instructions from the petitioner to enable him to pursue the petition. 3. The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. 4. The petitioner shall be at liberty to move an application for revival of the writ petition, if cause of action survives. (AVNEESH JHINGAN), J Himanshu/7