[2026:RJ-JP:6006] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14707/2024 Mahendra Sahu Son Of Shri Sohanlal Sahu, Resident Of 54, Shambhu Nagar, Kotda, Pushkar Road, Ajmer. ----Plaintiff/Respondent-Petitioner Versus Jitendra Lodha Son Of Shri Fatehsingh Lodha, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Pushkar Plywood, B.K. Kaul Nagar, Opposite Queens Marry School, Pushkar Road, Ajmer. ----Defendant/Appellant-Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siya Ram Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dilip Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 09/02/2026 1. The present civil writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 23.08.2024, passed by learned Additional District Judge No.5, Ajmer, in Civil Appeal No. 03/2024, whereby the learned Appellate Court while allowing the appeal of the defendant-respondent, quashed and set aside the order dated 11.12.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Ajmer South Ajmer, in Civil Misc. Case No. 86/2023, wherein, the parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the disputed property as mentioned in Para No.4 of the original application. 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 is arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and against the settled position of law. He further submits that the land in question was purchased from Daulat Ram on 09.11.2012, who had acquired it from the khatedar Ugma S/o Shankar, and [2026:RJ-JP:6006] (2 of 3) [CW-14707/2024] thetafter Daulat Ram surrendered the said land to the Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer. He contends that the petitioner’s possession of 459.62 sq. yds. since 2012 is well established, supported by the order of the trial Court. He, therefore, prays that both the order dated 23.08.2024 is liable to be quash and set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has no objection with respect to the land leased to Daulat Ram, if any portion of such leased land has been purchased by the plaintiff-petitioner under the lease agreement dated 26.09.2013. He further submits that he has no objection to the passing of a status quo order in respect thereof. However, it is contended that the petitioner shall not be permitted to claim any right, title, or interest over the land belonging to the defendant-respondent, which is under a lease agreement dated 26.09.2013 in favour of Bhoor Singh. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The claim of the plaintiff–petitioner is founded on an agreement to sell, which by itself does not create any right, title, or interest in the property. However, the said agreement has not been disputed by the defendant–respondent. The case of the defendant–respondent is that they do not claim any right over the property of Daulat Ram. Their claim is confined only to the property of Bhoor Singh, which is stated to be held under a lease agreement dated 26.09.2013. 6. In view of the above circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that the defendant shall not create any [2026:RJ-JP:6006] (3 of 3) [CW-14707/2024] hindrance under the lease deed of Daulat Ram and shall not make any encroachment or obstruction on the land alleged to have been purchased by the plaintiff from Daulat Ram, which Daulat Ram had acquired under the lease agreement dated 26.09.2013. 7. With the above observations, the present civil writ petition stands disposed of. 8. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J Sudha/50