[2025:RJ-JP:17146] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4523/2025 1. Mishri Lal Meena Son Of Shri Ramkunwar Meena, Resident Of Harsaura, Panchayat Samiti Bansur, District Kotputli- Behror, Rajasthan. 2. Amar Singh Son Of Ramkunwar, Resident Of Harsaura, Panchayat Samiti Bansur, District Kotputli- Behror, Rajasthan. 3. Smt. Suman Wife Of Late Shri Rohitash Son Of Shri Ramkunwar, Resident Of Harsaura, Panchayat Samiti Bansur, District Kotputli- Behror, Rajasthan. 4. Sitaram Son Of Late Shri Rohitash, Resident Of Harsaura, Panchayat Samiti Bansur, District Kotputli- Behror, Rajasthan. 5. Krishna Son Of Late Shri Rohitash, Resident Of Harsaura, Panchayat Samiti Bansur, District Kotputli- Behror, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Secretary, Gram Panchayat Harsaura, Panchayat Samiti Bansur, District Kotputli-Behror, Rajasthan 2. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Harsaura, Panchayat Samiti Bansur, District Kotputli-Behror 3. Smt. Santosh Wife Of Udairam, Resident Of Harsaura, Panchayat Samiti Bansur, District Kotputli-Behror 4. Udairam Son Of Ramkunwar Meena, Resident Of Harsaura, Panchayat Samiti Bansur, District Kotputli- Behror ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Alok Chaturvedi For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 23/04/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:17146] (2 of 3) [CW-4523/2025] 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the Additional District Collector, Kotputli, District Kotputli-Behror rejecting stay application filed by the petitioner in the revision petition challenging the validity of patta dated 05.09.2024 as well as the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Development Officer. 2. Counsel submits that the land in question is a joint family property, but the authority concerned has allotted the patta of the same in favour of the respondents No.3 and 4 against which a revision petition was preferred before the Court of Additional District Collector along with stay application. Counsel submits that the stay application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 28.01.2025 and taking benefit of the situation, the construction has been made over the property in question. Now, the respondents No.3 and 4 are bent upon to alienate the same. Counsel submits that the entire purpose of filing revision petition would be frustrated, in case, the property in question is allowed to be alienated. 3. This Court is not going to examine the validity of the patta issued by the authority concerned as the matter is subjudice before the Revisional Authority i.e. Additional District Collector. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the Revisional Authority to decide the revision petition expeditiously as early [2025:RJ-JP:17146] (3 of 3) [CW-4523/2025] as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 5. For a period of four weeks, the respondents are restrained to alienate the property in question. 6. The instant order has been passed looking to the interest of both parties. In case, the respondents No.3 and 4 feel aggrieved by this order, they would be at liberty to move an application for revival of the petition and recall of this order. 7. With the above observations, the instant writ petition stand disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/58