Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8714 (RAJ)

NANAGI v. THE BOR AJMER AND ORS

CW/3871/2001 · 2025-09-10

Anoop Kumar Dhand

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:36715] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3871/2001 1 Nanagl (since deceased), to be represented by 1.1 Dharam Singh son of Shri Shiv Chand Singh, Singh, aged 51 years, resident of 28, Surendra Pal Colony, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. 2. The additional Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur Division, Mini Secretariat, Beni Park, Jaipur. 3. The Tehsildar, Sanganer. 4. Hanuman son of Ram Chandra, resident of village teeba Sheopur, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 5. Kamla daughter of Ganesh Narain Sharma, and wife of Hanuman Sharma, Haryana Brahmin, resident of village Teeba Sheopur, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. Non petitioners 6. Tara dauther of Ganesh Narain Sharma, wife of Sharnker Lal, resident of Kapurala, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 7. Koshalya daughter of Ganesh Narain Sharma, wife of Mangal Chand, resident of Kapurala, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaiupr. 8. Lali daughter of Ganesh Narain Sharma, wife of Babu Lal, resident of Kakpurala, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 9. Dhapu, daughter of Ganesh Narain Sharma, wife of Satya Narain, resident of village Nayabas, Dhani Singwadia, Tehsil Jamva Ramgarh, District Jaipur. Proforma Non petitioners. 10. Jhaman Das S/o Shri Chuta Ram aged 3 years, R/o 49, Sindhi colony, Nahri ka Naka, Jaipur. 11. Asan Das S/o Shri Chuta Ram aged 28 years R/o 49, Sindhi colony, Nahri ka Naka, Jaipur. 12. Smt. Jyoti Devi W/o Lt. Shri Prem Chand R/o 49, Sindhi colony, Nahri ka Naka, Jaipur. ----Non-petitioners/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : [2025:RJ-JP:36715] (2 of 2) [CW-3871/2001] JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/09/2025 1. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners. 2. This writ petition is pending since 2001. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting this matter and they have lost interest in pursuing this matter. 3. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution. Stay application as well as all pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/2