Writ petition seeking direction for amendment of revenue record dismissed. The Court held that if petitioners were aggrieved by the Tehsildar's order, they should have challenged it before the appropriate forum, as such relief could not be granted under the inherent jurisdiction of Article 226.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 601/2011
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh through VC |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Ms. Gunjan Chawla Ms. Priyamwada Singh |
| Mr. Harshit Parashar | |
| Mr. P.L.Bairwa for Mr. Neeraj Batra- G.C. |
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
09/05/2025
(2 of 2)
[CW-601/2011]
jurisdiction contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Ashu/32
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can grant relief by directing amendment of revenue record in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Article 226?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Santosh Devi
Shri Aditya
Shri Purshottam
State Of Rajasthan
Tehsildar, Tehsil Navalgarh
Anoop Kumar Dhand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
