[2026:RJ-JP:33192] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15212/2026 CNR: RJHC020736612026 | URN: CW / 32381U / 2026 1. Abdul Aziz Mother Saidan Bano, Father Mohammad Khan 2. Gulsher Ali Mother Saidan Bano, Father Mohammad Khan 3. Abdul Raheem Mother Saidan Bano, Father Mohammad Khan 4. Mansoob Ali Mother Saidan Bano, Father Mohammad Khan 5. Yusuf Khan Mother Saidan Bano, Father Mohammad Khan 6. Smt. Madeena Bano Mother Saidan Bano, Father Mohammad Khan 7. Smt. Moseena Bano Mother Saidan Bano, Father Mohammad Khan 8. Smt. Shahnaz Begum W/o Iklaq Mohd, Mother Saidan Bano Father Mohammad Khan 9. Rais Mother Noor Bano, Father Subhan 10. Guddi Bai W/o Hakeem Mohammad, Mother Noor Bano 11. Guddi Bano W/o Mushtaq Mohammad Mother Noor Bano, All Residents Of Keshavrao Patan, District Bundi, Rajasthan, Through Their Power Of Attorney Toufiq Ahmad @ Monu Son Of Sh. Mohammad Hanif, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Mama Karima Ka Chowk, Hiran Bazar, Maqbara, Kota, Rajasthan, The Duly Constituted Attorney/mukhtar-E-Aam Under Registered General Power Of Attorney Dated 13.09.2022 ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Development And Housing (Udh), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Kota Development Authority, Kota, Through Its Prescribed/authorised Officer (Pradhikrit Adhikari), Having Its Office At Kota, Rajasthan. 3. M/s G.d.p. Associates, Shop No.2, Plot No.3, Gulabvihar, Borkheda-324002 Through Its Partners Dhanna Lal Yogi Son Of Late Sh. Ishwar Lal Yogi, Resident Of Kumharon Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 44, Kalatalab (Rangtalab), Arjunpura, Kota Partner/constituent Of M/s G.d.p. Associates 4. Irfan Khan Son Of Abdul Gaffar, Resident Of New Basti, Kalatalab, Arjunpura, Kota Junction, Kota Partner/constituent Of M/s G.d.p. Associates 5. Prabhu Singh Son Of Late Shyoram, Resident Of Village Kalatalab Alias Rangtalab, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota. 6. Mulkraj Singh Son Of Late Shyoram, Resident Of Village [2026:RJ-JP:33192] (2 of 3) [CW-15212/2026] Kalatalab Alias Rangtalab, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota. 7. Shakti Singh Son Of Late Shyoram, Resident Of Village Kalatalab Alias Rangtalab, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhijeet Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 19/08/2026 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners by challenging orders dated 22.05.2025 & 14.02.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 19-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’). 2. While challenging the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that firstly information with regard to passing of impugned orders were delayed by the respondents for a period of more than four and a half years and secondly, the impugned orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice without affording a proper hearing and without assigning reasons in the impugned orders. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the orders passed by the respondents reflect abuse of power as well as malice in law, therefore, they are liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. On perusal of record and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court finds that the petition filed by the petitioners is totally misconceived and quite misleading arguments [2026:RJ-JP:33192] (3 of 3) [CW-15212/2026] have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. First and foremost submission of learned counsel for the petitioners was that the information with regard to impugned orders was given to the petitioners after four and half years. Admittedly dates of impugned orders are 14.02.2025 & 22.05.2025 and as per admitted case of the petitioners, information thereof has been given pursuant to application under Right to Information Act, 2005, filed by the petitioners, on 07.11.2025. Thus, the allegation that the information of impugned orders was given after four and half years is totally contrary to the record. 5. The petitioners themselves have placed on record copies of public notices issued by the Competent Authority prior to passing of impugned orders and pursuant thereto even objections were admittedly filed by the petitioners, hence, at this stage plea of non-compliance of principles of natural justice is not tenable and is liable to be rejected. 6. Even otherwise, the impugned orders are appealable under the provisions of statute itself, hence, under these circumstances, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. 7. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J 11/DAKSH