Disposed

Balveer Singh v. Bheekh Singh

Rajasthan HC9 May 2024CW/6503/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging vacation of status quo stay and rejection of stay/revision applications in a land dispute before revenue authorities. Court disposed it by directing the SDO to implead three private respondents as suit defendants and to decide the pending Section 212 Rajasthan Tenancy Act injunction application within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

SDO directed to implead respondents 1-3 as defendants and decide pending Section 212 application within two weeks; private respondents to maintain status quo meanwhile.

Balveer Singh Vs Bheekh Singh — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:20669]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6503/2024

¶4

Balveer Singh S/o Shri Roop Singh, Aged About 71 Years,

¶5

Chetan Prakash S/o Shri Roop Singh, Aged About 66 Years,

¶6

Chandra Shekhar S/o Shri Roop Singh, Aged About 63 Years, All R/o Opposite Mahamandir Railway Station, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Bheekh Singh S/o Ram Gopal,

¶10

Narpat Singh S/o Ram Gopal,

¶11

Jitendra Singh S/o Ram Gopal, All R/o Dhada Bera, Balsamand, Mandor, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶12

Dilip Singh S/o Panne Singh, R/o Maliyon Ka Bas, Udaimandir, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶13

Sarla D/o Panne Singh, W/o Inder Singh, R/o Maliyon Ka Bas, Udaimandir, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶14

Geeta Solanki W/o Shri Rajesh Kumar,

¶15

Alok Solanki S/o Shri Rajesh Kumar,

¶16

Aradhana D/o Shri Rajesh Kumar, All R/o Opposite Mahamandir Railway Station, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶17

Pradeep S/o Prem Singh,

¶18

Naveen S/o Prem Singh,

¶19

Nisha D/o Prem Singh,

¶20

Payal D/o Prem Singh,

¶21

Sarjeevan D/o Khinvraj, W/o Jagdish,

¶22

Usha Solanki D/o Shri Khinvraj,

¶23

Sanjay Bhati S/o Nahar Singh,

¶24

Indra D/o Shri Nahar Singh,

¶25

Narendra Tak S/o Sohan Singh,

¶26

Kiran D/o Shri Sohan Singh,

¶27

Ramesh Sankhla S/o Mangi Lal,

¶28

Satyendra Singh Sankhla S/o Mangi Lal,

¶29

Raju D/o Mangi Lal, W/o Manak,

¶30

Gawri Devi D/o Mangi Lal, W/o Bheek Singh,

¶31

Ansuya D/o Mangi Lal, W/o Trilok,

¶32

Laxmi D/o Mangi Lal,

¶33

Saraswati D/o Mangi Lal, Wo Anand Singh,

¶34

Beby D/o Mangi Lal,

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:20669]

[CW-6503/2024]

Gawri Devi W/o Mangi Lal, All R/o Hanslav Ki Pal, Mandor, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶39

Kamla D/o Mangi Lal, W/o Sunder Singh, R/o Behind Police Station, Mahamandir, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶40

Deputy Commissioner Zone-6, Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶41

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Tehsildar, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Respondents

¶42

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aidan Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. C. S. Kotwani

¶43

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order

¶44

09/05/2024

¶45

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶46

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), North, Jodhpur, whereby, the interim stay order of status quo was vacated, against the order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur, whereby, the stay application filed in appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed and the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan, whereby, the revision petition filed by the petitioners was rejected.

¶47

Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the private respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 may be impleaded as party defendants in the suit filed by the petitioners before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), North, Jodhpur. They further submit that the learned Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), North, Jodhpur may also be directed to decide the pending application of the petitioners under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 read with Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC within a reasonable period of time.

[2024:RJ-JD:20669]

[CW-6503/2024]

(3 of 3)

In view of the submissions made before this Court, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Sub Divisional Officer(SDO), North, Jodhpur to implead the private respondent No.1- Bheekh Singh, respondent No.2- Narpat Singh, & respondent No.3- Jitendra Singh as defendants in the suit preferred by the petitioners before him. He is further directed to decide the pending application of the petitioners under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 read with Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. 5. Learned counsel for the private respondents assures this Court that till the Sub Divisional Officer(SDO), North, Jodhpur decide the pending application of the petitioners under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 read with Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC, they will maintain the status quo with respect to the land in question and revenue entries.

¶52

It is made clear that the observations made by this Court shall not influence the Sub Divisional Officer(SDO), North, Jodhpur while deciding the pending application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 read with Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC.

¶53

Let the amended cause title be filed in accordance with law.

¶54

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶55

26-SunilS/-

Balveer Singh v. Bheekh Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balveer Singh v. Bheekh Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Singh Naruka Vs State of Rajasthan

Rukaiya Bano Vs Commissioner

Mayank Chawra Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajkumar Jaat Vs State of Rajasthan

Puranchand Kwatra Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganesh Ram Vs State of Rajasthan