Allowed

Suraj Mal Vardia Son of Rajmal Jain (Vardia) v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Dec 2023CW/2665/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a limited writ petition seeking directions to the Board of Revenue, Ajmer to decide a pending appeal against the petitioners within six months after providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the Board of Revenue, Ajmer to decide the pending appeal, if any, expeditiously within six months after providing an opportunity of hearing to the other side.

Suraj Mal Vardia Son of Rajmal Jain (Vardia) Vs State… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:38757]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2665/2023

¶4

Suraj Mal Vardia Son of Rajmal Jain (Vardia), Aged About 76 Years, R/o 21/274, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

¶5

Amrit Lal @ Ashok Kumar Son of Rajmal, R/o Baramsar Tehsil and District Jaisalmer.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Jaisalmer.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Siddhartha Jain Mutha
For Respondent(s)	:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

11/12/2023

¶14

A limited prayer has been made by counsel for the petitioners for issuing direction to the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short, ‘the Board’) to decide the pending appeal expeditiously, as early as possible within a time frame.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the appeal filed by the respondents-State against the petitioners is pending before the Board since 2016 and till date, the said appeal has not been decided. Counsel submits that looking to the controversy involved in this matter, a direction be issued to the Board to decide the appeal expeditiously.

¶16

The prayer made by counsel for the petitioners appear to be genuine.

¶17

Instant petition accordingly stands disposed of with direction to the Board to decide the appeal (pending, if any) expeditiously

(2 of 2)

[2023:RJ-JP:38757]

[CW-2665/2023]

as early as possible, after providing the opportunity of hearing to the other side as well, not beyond the period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶22

All pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶23

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶24

Ashu/39

Suraj Mal Vardia Son of Rajmal Jain (Vardia) v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Mal Vardia Son of Rajmal Jain (Vardia) 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

Chandrakanta Meena Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Shreeji Traders Vs State of Rajasthan

Habibulla S/O Vahidulla @ Achhu Kha Vs Nagar Parishad Tonk

Bharat Ram Sharma S/O Shri Radheyshyam Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Rambagh Golf Club Vs State of Rajasthan

Nagar Nigam Jaipur Vs Wasif Ali Farooqi and Anr.