Disposed

Shri Omprakash S/O Shri Risaal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Dec 2023CW/20309/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the non-decision of a restoration application by the Divisional Commissioner despite a clear direction to decide it within one month. The Court directed the Divisional Commissioner to decide the application within one month, extended the status quo order, and barred adjournment requests.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Divisional Commissioner to decide the pending restoration application within one month and extended the status quo order for one more month pending such decision.

Shri Omprakash S/O Shri Risaal Singh… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20309/2023

¶3

Shri Omprakash S/o Shri Risaal Singh, R/o Delsar Khurd Tehsile, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶4

Shri Mahendra S/o Shri Ratiram Singh, R/o Delsar Khurd Tehsile, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Secretariate, Jaipur.

¶8

Sub-Divisional Officer, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶9

Shri Dayanand S/o Shyoram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Delsar Khurd Tehsile, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶10

Shri Subhashchandra S/o Kanhaiyalal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Delsar Khurd Tehsile, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶11

Shri Pawan Kumar S/o Mahaveer, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Delsar Khurd Tehsile, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Gupta For Respondent(s) :

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶15

Order

¶16

21/12/2023

¶17

Limited grievance has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner that in spite of passing of clear and specific direction vide order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue, till date, the Divisional Commissioner has not decided the restoration application filed by the petitioners. Counsel further submits that

¶18

[CW-20309/2023]

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

while deciding the revision petition filed by the petitioners, the Divisional Commissioner was directed to decide the restoration application within a period of one month and a limited order was passed directing the parties to maintain status quo on the site, as well as on the record. Counsel submits that in spite of passing of more than two months till date, the restoration application has not been decided and the petitioner is facing inconvenience in cultivation of the crops of his field. Counsel submits that for getting clarification about the status quo order, an application was submitted on 05.12.2023 before the concerned Court and then on that application, the concerned Court has passed one line order that the stay order is still in operation . Counsel submits that under these compelling circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court for seeking appropriate directions.

¶21

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 3. This fact is not in dispute that while deciding the revision petition filed by the respondent, the Board passed a specific direction to the Divisional Commissioner to decide the pending restoration application within a period of one month and the said order was passed on 16.10.2023. It appears that the said restoration application has not been decided yet, in spite of passing of more than two months. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances, the Divisional Commissioner is directed to decide the pending restoration application within a period of one month from today and the order passed by the Board with regard to status quo shall remain effective for one more month only. In case, any adjournment is sought on behalf of the respondents to

¶22

[CW-20309/2023]

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

argue the restoration application, the Divisional Commissioner may further extend the interim order of status quo passed by the Board. The Divisional Commissioner is further directed to not to entertain any request of adjournment made by the either side.

¶25

The instant writ petition stands disposed of with direction.

¶26

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶27

Aayush Sharma/5

Shri Omprakash S/O Shri Risaal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Omprakash S/O Shri Risaal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Son of Kalyan Vs State of Rajasthan

Saroj Agarwal D/O Vishwanath Agarwal W/O Sh. Shiv Kumar Agarwal Vs Jaipur Development Authority

Devendra Kumar S/O Late Shri Sugan Chand Vs Digamber Jain Parmarthik Trust

Phool Singh Andors Vs State Education Department Ors.

Gajanand Bunkar Son of Shri Narayan Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan

Arjun Ram S/O Bhulnath Vs State of Rajasthan