[2026:RJ-JP:3079] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1054/2026 Shriram S/o Sh. Banshidhar, R/o Juliyasar, Tehsil Laxmangarh District Sikar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Anil Kumar, Land Record Officer Cum Ex-Officio Revenue Appeal Authority, Sikar. 2. Sarasvati Devi, W/o Late Gajanand 3. Mahaveer Prasad, S/o Late Gajanand 4. Savita, D/o Late Gajanand 5. Sangeeta, D/o Late Gajanand 6. Mintu D/o Late Gajanand, All Are R/o Juliyasar, Tehsil Laxmangarh District Sikar, At Present Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh District Churu. ----Plaintiffs/Respondents 7. Sitaram, S/o Mohanlal 8. Surja Devi, W/o Sitaram 9. Hariprasad S/o Late Sitaram, All Are R/o Juliyasar, Tehsil Laxmangarh District Sikar, At Present Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh District Churu. 10. Arjun Lal, S/o Late Sitaram 11. Sampati S/o Late Sitaram W/o Madanlal, R/o Jaswantgarh, Tehsil Ladnu District Nagaur. 12. Bhanwari Devi D/o Late Sitaram W/o Narayanmal, R/o Roja Tehsil Jayal District Nagaur, Raj. (Deceased) 13. Mukesh Sharma S/o Narayanalal, R/o Roja Tehsil Jayal District Nagaur. 14. Dinesh Sharma S/o Narayanmal, R/o Roja Tehsil Jayal District Nagaur. 15. Anu D/o Bhanwari Devi W/o Ramavtar, R/o Soniyasar, Tehsil Dungargarh District Bikaner. 16. Anita Sharma D/o Bhanwari Devi, R/o Roja Tehsil Jayal District Nagaur. 17. Manju D/o Bhanwari W/o Ratanlal, R/o Rodu, Tehsil Ladnu District Nagaur. 18. Poonam Devi W/o Late Naresh Kumar, R/o Juliyasar, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar. 19. Jitendra S/o Late Naresh Kumar, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Poonam Devi W/o Naresh Kumar, R/o Juliyasar, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar. 20. Ajay S/o Late Naresh Kumar, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Poonam Devi W/o Naresh Kumar, R/o Juliyasar, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar. [2026:RJ-JP:3079] (2 of 5) [CW-1054/2026] 21. Bhanwarlal, S/o Tulsiram 22. Jagdish, S/o Tulsiram 23. Rajendra S/o Tulsiram, All Are R/o Juliyasar, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar. 24. Bhanwar Kanwar W/o Pokhar Singh, R/o Juliyasar, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar. 25. Abhishek, S/o Ashok 26. Taramani, W/o Bhanwarlal 27. Raghunath, S/o Bhanwarlal 28. Mahaveer Prasad, S/o Bhanwarlal 29. Gajanand, S/o Bhanwarlal 30. Suresh, S/o Bhanwarlal 31. Banwari, S/o Bhanwarlal 32. Manju, D/o Bhanwarlal 33. Hanuman, S/o Gopi 34. Patasi, D/o Gopi 35. Sharda W/o Sohanlal, All Are R/o Gram Juliyasar, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar. 36. Isar, S/o Bhairu (Deceased) 37. Shankarlal, S/o Late Isar Ram Kumhar 38. Gheesaram, S/o Late Isar Ram Kumhar 39. Jagdish S/o Late Isar Ram Kumhar, All Are R/o Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh District Churu. 40. Durga D/o Isarram W/o Bajranglal, R/o Ghirniya Chhota, Tehsil Laxmangarh District Sikar. 41. Narwana Seva Sadan, Salasar 42. Fatehabad Seva Sadan, Salasar 43. Shriram Vilas Indrawati Charitable Trust, Salasar Through Its President. 44. Shriram S/o Prahlad, (Deceased) 45. Kiran, W/o Late Shriram 46. Shobha, D/o Late Shriram 47. Lalit, S/o Late Shriram 48. Radhakrishan, S/o Prahlad 49. Satyaprakash S/o Prahlad, All Are R/o Salasar Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu. 50. Sub Registrar Officer, Laxmangarh. 51. Landholder State Of Rajasthan Through Its Tehsildar, Laxmangarh District Sikar. 52. Champa Devi D/o Kanhiram, W/o Banshidhar (Deceased) 53. Shyam Sunder, D/o Banshidhar 54. Nandkishore, S/o Banshidhar [2026:RJ-JP:3079] (3 of 5) [CW-1054/2026] 55. Kanta D/o Banshidhar W/o Ramesh Kumar, All Are R/o Gindra Chauk Doliyo Ka Bas, Sikar Tehsil And Sikar. 56. Lalita D/o Banshidhar W/o Shankarlal, R/o Gindra Chauk Doliyo Ka Bas, Sikar Tehsil And Sikar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Asgar Khan For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 22/01/2026 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereby the transfer application No. T.A./8183/2025 has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite having justified reasons for transferring the case from present Revenue Appellate Authority to another Revenue Appellate Authority, the learned Board of Revenue has not accepted the prayer of transfer and has rejected the transfer application filed by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner prays that the impugned order dated 10.12.2025 may kindly be quashed and set aside and a direction may kindly be issued to transfer the case to another Revenue Appellate Authority. 3. Heard and considered the submissions and perused the record. 4. From bare perusal of the transfer application filed by the petitioner as well as the impugned order dated 10.12.2025, it is revealed that the petitioner did not substantiate any facts or evidence to establish that the Presiding Officer is acting with an [2026:RJ-JP:3079] (4 of 5) [CW-1054/2026] intent to unfairly benefit the non-applicant-respondent No.1. Even though it is true that judicial process must be credible, but no party should be permitted to make unsubstantiated allegations against the presiding officer merely to seek transfer of the case. 5. Transferring a case from one Court to another will indirectly cause a doubt on the competency and integrity of the Presiding Officer, from whom the case is sought to be transferred. Mere presumption or possible apprehension is not sufficient. In this case, the petitioner has merely alleged that the presiding officer is intent on fixing a final hearing without proper service, but has not produced any evidence to substantiate his allegations. It is not a good and sufficient ground to justify his claim. A transfer should not readily be granted for any fancied emotion of a litigant. It should be granted only for a strong reason. 6. Further, in Harita Sunil Parab Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: "7. In Gurcharan Das Chadha v. State of Rajasthan, (1966) 2 SCR 678, dealing with the issue for transfer of a case, it was observed: "13....The law with regard to transfer of cases is well- settled. A case is transferred if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done. A Petitioner is not required to demonstrate that justice will inevitably fail. He is entitled to a transfer if he shows circumstances from which it can be inferred that he entertains an apprehension and that it is reasonable in the circumstances alleged. It is one of the principles of the administration of justice that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done. However, a mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case does not office. The Court has further to see whether the apprehension is reasonable or not. To judge of the reasonableness of the apprehension the State of the mind of the person who entertains the apprehension is no doubt relevant but that is not all. The apprehension must not only be entertained but must appear to the Court to be a reasonable apprehension." 8. The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial enquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon 1 (2018) 6 SCC 358 [2026:RJ-JP:3079] (5 of 5) [CW-1054/2026] conjectures and surmises. No universal or hard and fast Rule can be prescribed for deciding a transfer petition, which will always have to be decided on the facts of each case...." (Emphasis Supplied) 7. Applying the above principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial enquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary; the apprehension cannot be based on conjectures and surmises. Since the transfer application filed by the petitioner does not inspire confidence, the same cannot be accepted, and a careful examination of the impugned order reflects that the impugned order is perfectly just and proper. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or legal infirmity so as to call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 10. All other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /31