[2026:RJ-JP:7852] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17571/2025 1. Sohan Lal Son Of Late Shri Laduram, (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs- 2. Laxman Son Of Late Shri Sohan Lal, (Deceased) Through Its Legal Heirs- 3. Kishan Singh, Son Of Shri Mohan Lal 4. Meera, D/o Shri Mohan Lal 5. Pyare Lal, S/o Late Shri Laduram 6. Bhagwan Singh, S/o Shri Laduram 7. Ram Singh S/o Late Shri Laduram, All Residents Of Thokteliyan First, Sector 11/76, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer. 8. Smt. Parvati Devi, Wife Of Late Sohan Lal 9. Shankar Singh, Son Of Late Shri Sohan Lal 10. Mohini Devi, Wife Of Late Shri Laxman 11. Nisha, D/o Laxman 12. Shakti, S/o Laxman ----Petitioners Versus 1. Bhagwan Chandiram Son Of Late Shri Chandiram, Resident Of 18-19, Chandra Niwas, Rembul Road, Mehboob Ki Kothi, Ajmer. 2. Ramesh Chandiram Son Of Late Shri Chandiram, Resident Of 18-19, Chandra Niwas, Rembul Road, Mehboob Ki Kothi, Ajmer. 3. Ashok Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Bhanwar Lal Sharma, Resident Of 27-T Block, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer. 4. Smt. Nanda Sharma Wife Ashok Kumar Sharma, Resident Of 27-G Block, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer. 5. Aditya Sharma Son Ashok Kumar Sharma, Resident Of 27-G Block, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer. 6. Akshay Sharma Son Ashok Kumar Sharma, Resident Of 27-G Block, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer. 7. Dy. Commissioner, Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer. 8. Sub Registrar, Ajmer (First) ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:7852] (2 of 4) [CW-17571/2025] For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Bhavana Ladha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshit Mittal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 16/02/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.08.2025, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, in revision petition bearing No. Revision/UIT/2024/1132/Ajmer, titled as Sohan Lal and Ors. Versus Bhagwan Chandiram and Ors., vide which the revision petition filed by the petitioners challenging the issuance of patta dated 03.03.2023 by the Ajmer Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “ADA”) along with the application filed under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (CPC) seeking leave to file the revision petition has been dismissed. 2. Ms. Bhavana Ladha, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that as the pattas dated 03.03.2023 issued by the ADA, duly registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Ajmer-I, in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 affects the rights of the petitioners, they are per se illegal as no such pattas could have been issued by the ADA without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in this regard, representations were made by the petitioners to the ADA, however, no heed was paid to the same. Learned counsel further submits that the land for which the said pattas have been allotted, forms part of Khasra No. 2143 which was in the khatedari of predecessors of the petitioners, and thus, they have vested right [2026:RJ-JP:7852] (3 of 4) [CW-17571/2025] in the said land and accordingly, the application filed by them under Section 96 CPC ought to have been allowed. 4. Hence, it is prayed that the order dated 11.08.2025, be set aside and the pattas issued to the respondents No.1 and 2 on 03.03.2023 be cancelled. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 submits that as the patta dated 03.03.2023 was duly registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Ajmer-I, the revision petition itself was not maintainable and a specific finding in this regard has been rightly arrived at in the order dated 11.08.2025. 6. Learned counsel further submits that earlier also writ petitions were filed by the petitioners, however, no order in favour of the petitioners was passed therein. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have no nexus with the said land as the petitioners are successors of one Laduram, whereas, the land in question belongs to the successors of late Mr. Madhu and thus, on account of no locus standi of the petitioners, the revision petition was dismissed and even the writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Learned counsel further submits that no documents worth the name have been submitted by petitioners to substantiate any legal right so as to assail the validity of the pattas dated 03.03.2023 and to further assail the order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer. 8. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. [2026:RJ-JP:7852] (4 of 4) [CW-17571/2025] 10. A bare perusal of the order dated 11.08.2025, so also the pattas dated 03.03.2023, the validity of which have been assailed by the petitioners by filing revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer makes it apparent that the pattas dated 03.03.2023 were duly registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Ajmer-I and no document worth the name has been placed on record by the petitioners to establish any right of theirs with respect to the said land. It is also a matter of record that no challenge to the validity of the duly registered pattas could have been raised by the petitioners before the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer. 11. Also, perusal of the order dated 11.08.2025 reveals that the said order has been passed after duly considering the facts stated and ground raised and the finding with respect to the petitioners having failed to establish their locus standi was rightly arrived at. 12. Further, the order dated 11.08.2025 grants liberty to the petitioners to invoke appropriate remedy under the provisions of Section 50A the Ajmer Development Authority Act, 2013, for redressal of their grievances regarding revocation of allotment and cancellation of lease deed. 13. In view of the above, there is no reason to interfere in the order dated 11.08.2025 and consequently the present writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DIPESH CHAYAL /18