[2026:RJ-JP:23800] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10442/2026 URN: CW / 23152U / 2026 1. Kalyan Prasad S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Adopted S/o Jagji, Resident Of Nahargarh, Tehsil Kishanganj, District Baran. (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives- 1/1) Krishan Chandra Shringi S/o Late Shri Kalyan Prasad, Resident Of Mpa 47, Mahaveer Nagar-Ii, Opposite Ganapati Plaza, Kota, Rajasthan. 1/2) Praveen Shringi S/o Late Shri Kalyan Prasad, Resident Of Ward No. 3, Near Sagar School, Mandi Pada, Nahargarh, Tehsil Kishanganj, District Baran, Rajasthan. 1/3) Smt. Vijay Luxmi Shringi W/o Ghanshyam Shringi, D/o Late Shri Kalyan Prasad, Resident Of Near Shivaji Park, Mahaveer Nagar-3Rd Kota, Rajasthan. 1/4) Smt. Deepika Shringi W/o Dinesh Shringi, D/o Late Shri Kalyan Prasad, Resident Of 10-F-15, Parijat Colony, Mahaveer Nagar-3Rd Kota, Rajasthan. 1/5) Smt. Brijesh Shringi W/o Ajay Shringi, D/o Late Shri Kalyan Prasad, Resident Of Krishna Colony, Near Railway Station, Ramganj Mandi, District Kota, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Giriraj Prasad S/o Shri Purushottam Lal, Resident Of Nahargarh, Tehsil Kishanganj, District Baran. (Since Deceased) Through His Legal Representatives 1.1 Smt. Draupdi Devi W/o Late Shri Giriraj Prasad; 1.2 Pawan Shringi S/o Late Shri Giriraj Prasad; 1.3 Naresh Shringi S/o Late Shri Giriraj Prasad; 1.4 Mahesh Shringi S/o Late Shri Giriraj Prasad; All residents of Nandaji Ki Dukan Ke Pass, Tipata, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota, Rajasthan. 1.5 Smt. Vasudha W/o Shri Dinesh Shringi D/o Late Shri Giriraj Prasad, Resident Of F/f/50, Shiv Mandir Ke Pass, Tagore Nagar, Kota, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota, Rajasthan. [2026:RJ-JP:23800] (2 of 5) [CW-10442/2026] 1.6 Smt. Suman W/o Shri Mahaveer Singh Yaduvanshi D/o Late Shri Giriraj Prasad, Resident Of Fala Gorda, Village Post Teedi, Tehsil Girva, District Udaipur, Rajasthan. 1.7 Smt. Shakuntala W/o Shri Ramesh Shringi D/o Late Shri Giriraj Prasad, Resident Of Village Post Teedi Barpal, Tehsil Girva, District Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Non-Petitioners-Respondent-Plaintiff 1.1 The State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar Kishanganj, District Baran, Rajasthan. ------Performa-Respondent-Non-Petitioner-Defendant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kishan Yogi with Mr. Yenu Satyan For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 29/06/2026 1. By way of filing this writ petition, petitioners have challenged order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, whereby review petition filed by the petitioners for reviewing and recalling judgment dated 27.12.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue, dismissing second appeal of the defendant, has been dismissed. Petitioners have further prayed for quashing the judgment dated 27.12.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue as well as judgment and decree dated 26.08.2002 passed by the Appellate Authority, i.e. Settlement Officer and Ex-officio Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota as well as judgment and decree dated 31.03.2001 passed by the Sub-District Collector, Shahbad. 2. Petitioners have come out with the case that original defendant- Kalyan Prasad was biological son of Shri Kanhaiya Lal [2026:RJ-JP:23800] (3 of 5) [CW-10442/2026] and adopted son of Shri Jagji and by virtue of being adopted son of Jagji, defendant No.1 Kalyan Prasad was entitled for half share of land bearing Khasra No.1544 measuring 30 Bighas 12 Biswas situated at Village Nahargarh, Tehsil Kishanganj. 3. However, plaintiff- Giriraj Prasad filed a revenue suit under Sections 88, 89, 90, 188, 183 and 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for seeking partition and injunction in respect of the aforesaid land. The aforesaid suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the Sub-District Collector, Shahbad vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2001, whereby plaintiff was declared Khatedar of 1/8th share in the aforesaid land. 4. Feeling aggrieved, original defendant No.1 Kalyan Prasad filed appeal before the Settlement Officer-cum-RAA, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 26.08.2002. Further, the defendant preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer unsuccessfully challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as of First Appellate Court. Second appeal filed by the defendant was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.10.2002 and thereby judgment and decree of the Courts below was also confirmed. 5. Thereafter, on 25.06.2003 review petition was filed on behalf of the defendant for seeking review of judgment dated 27.12.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue for dismissing second appeal. During the pendency of review petition as original party has died, therefore, application for substitution of legal representatives was filed and subsequently allowed. The review petition filed on behalf of the defendant and contested by legal [2026:RJ-JP:23800] (4 of 5) [CW-10442/2026] representatives of the defendant was also dismissed on 09.02.2026. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Board of Revenue has utterly failed to appreciate that there was error apparent on the face of record as neither the Board of Revenue, nor the Courts below have properly appreciated that the defendant- Kalyan Prasad was adopted son of Jagji and therefore, in the capacity of adopted son of Jagji, his rights should have been decided accordingly conferring Khatedari rights upon him, treating him to be adopted son of Jagji. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the second appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed in limine without properly considering the record, which has caused serious prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioners. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. 8. It is settled proposition of law that scope of review petition is very limited and only in the cases, where any relevant fact or document/evidence, although very much available on record, has been left from consideration of the concerned Court and such error is apparent from bare perusal of the record, the aggrieved person can seek review of the judgment/order. 9. In the instant case, this Court finds that in the entire review petition filed on behalf of the defendant before the Board of Revenue, the defendant has utterly failed to point out any manifest or patent error on the face of record in the judgment dated 27.12.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue. This Court also finds that concurrent finding has been given that although, [2026:RJ-JP:23800] (5 of 5) [CW-10442/2026] petitioner is claiming himself to adopted son of Jagji, yet no adoption deed in this regard, nor any other convincing evidence to prove that Kalyan Prasad was adopted son of Jagji has ever produced on behalf of the defendant. 10. Thus, in view of above, this Court does not find any apparent error, illegality or infirmity in the judgments delivered by the Board of Revenue and the Courts below. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is totally misconceived and is hereby dismissed. 11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J 7/DIVYA