[2025:RJ-JP:31799-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 413/2023 Radheyshyam S/o Shri Chauthmal, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Kanadwas, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur Through General Power Of Attorney Holder Aashish Meena S/o Shri Harchand Meena, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Jhar, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.) At Present Resident Of Kanadwas, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.). ----Appellant Versus 1. Jago Janta Society, Registered Under The Rajasthan Societies Act, Registered Office At B-211, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Secretary Mr. Tarun Jain S/o Late Shri G.l. Jain. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The Municipal Council, Lal Kothi, Jaipur Through Its Administrator. 4. Mr. J.P. Gupta, Commissioner, Goshalla, Municipal Council, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anshuman Saxena with Mr. Girdhari Lal Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG with Mr. Manoj Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 14/08/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:- 1. This intra-court appeal is filed against the order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.15585/2010. 2. The brief facts are that the writ petition was filed by Jago Janta Society, Jaipur with the prayer for seeking directions to the [2025:RJ-JP:31799-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-413/2023] respondent to save the cows kept in Hingonia Gaushala and in other Gaushala and arrange green fodder and cattle feeds and to ensure treatment to sick cows. 3. During pendency of the petition various interim orders were passed which culminated in the impugned judgment in which nineteen directions were given to the State Government to be implemented. The appellant Radheyshayam aggrieved of the impugned judgment filed a review which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.12.2022 with liberty to file the special appeal. 4. The appellant was not party in the writ petition, however, grievance raised is that the impugned order to transfer the land of the appellant in favour of Hingonia Gaushala passed was at the back of the petitioner. 5. The appellant claimed that land in Khasra No.100, measuring two bigha three biswa situated in village Kanadwas, Gram Panchayat Boodthal, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur was allotted to the appellant by the advisory committee on 31.12.1971. The appellant claims to be in-cultivating possession of the land. The land continued to be entered as Siwaychak in the revenue record. Vide mutation dated 26.03.1999 the land-in-question was entered in the name of Jaipur Development Authority (for short ‘JDA’). The JDA insisted upon having possession of the land and appellant filed revenue suit on 01.11.2002 through power of attorney holder. The suit for declaration and correction in revenue record is now numbered as 133/2008. [2025:RJ-JP:31799-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-413/2023] 6. The fact emerging from the contentions and the pleadings is that after allotment in 1971 the land-in-question was not even once entered in the name of the appellant in revenue records. 7. The short grievance raised is that the litigation qua title of the land and the correction of revenue entries is pending and yet the learned Single Judge has ordered the transfer of land in favour of Hingonia Gaushala. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant stresses on direction No.4 given to the State Government in the judgment dated 31.05.2017, is quoted below:- “mi ftyk/kh’k@ fxjnkoj] cLlh us viuh fjiksVZ esa tks fgaxksfu;k xkS’kkyk dh Hkwfe crk;h gS ml ij vfrØe.k ljdkjh ;k xSj ljdkjh ugha gks mlds lEcU/k esa jkT; ljdkj ls vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd Hkwfe dk fpjdky rd ogh mi;ksx j[kk tkosA tSlk fd bl ckjs esa funsZ’k U;k;ky; ds mijksä of.kZr vkns’k }kjk fn;s x;s gSaA” 9. From perusal of the directions, it is evident that the authorities were directed to ensure that on the land of Hingonia Gaushala shown as in report of the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) there is no encroachment. Further that it is expected from the State Government that in the long run usage of the land shall not to be changed with regard to which the orders are passed. 10. There is no specific direction for transfer of the land-in- question in favour of Hingonia Gaushala. Realizing this learned counsel for the appellant is not pressing this appeal with liberty to approach SDO Court concerned for expeditious disposal of suit No.133/2008. [2025:RJ-JP:31799-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-413/2023] 11. The appeal is disposed of as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. 12. In the eventuality of request being made by the appellant for an early disposal of the suit, the same shall be considered in accordance with law and earnest effort would be made to decide the suit expeditiously. In any case, no unwarranted adjournment shall be granted to either of the parties. 13. Needless to say that in case of success of the appellant in the suit, consequential relief are bound to be follow in accordance with law. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/Riya/15