Petitioners sought recall of earlier orders dismissing and withdrawing their writ petitions challenging a Board of Revenue decision upholding a 1969 sale of Scheduled Caste land. The court found no counsel-conflict evidence and held the recalling application for a withdrawn writ petition not maintainable.
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. Review Petition (Writ) No. 248/2017
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14690/2014
State of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Keshorai Patan, District Bundi
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 365/2017
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7956/2010
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
(2 of 8)
[WRW-248/2017]
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Amit Jindal |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma |
| Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC with | |
| Ms. Gunjan Chawal | |
| Mr. Vikas Kabra |
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
13/08/2025
[WRW-248/2017]
(3 of 8)
General Caste and such sale is hit by Section 42 of the Act of 1955. It was alleged in the said application by the Tehsildar that the purchaser Satnam since belongs to General Caste Category, the sale so made by the Gopal was void, in terms of Section 42 of the Act of 1955. The learned Sub Divisional Officer (for shrot, ‘SDO’) vide judgment dated 01.01.1983 decreed the suit and declared the sale deed as void, against which an appeal was preferred by Satnam before the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short, ‘RAA’). The matter was remanded to the SDO by the RAA with certain directions. Thereafter, the SDO decreed the suit again vide judgment dated 29.09.2004 against which again Satnam submitted an appeal before the RAA, however, this time the appeal was rejected vide judgment dated 24.05.2006 and it was held that the transaction of sale was contrary to the mandate, contained under Section 42 of the Act of 1955. Thereafter, Satnam submitted second appeal before the Board of Revenue (for short, ‘the Board’). The second appeal submitted by Satnam was allowed by the Board vide judgment dated 16.03.2010 and the judgments passed by the SDO and RAA were quashed and set-aside while observing that Satnam does not belong to General Caste, rather he also belongs to Scheduled Caste Category, as per the latest notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan.
(4 of 8)
[WRW-248/2017]
and the petitioners-Kali Bai and Ram Lal respectively, before this Court.
(5 of 8) [WRW-248/2017]
(6 of 8) [WRW-248/2017]
[WRW-248/2017]
(7 of 8)
and unsuccessfully challenged the order before the First Appellate Authority i.e. RAA where the appeal was rejected against which he preferred second appeal before the Board. 12. It is worthy to note here that at this juncture also, the petitioners-Kali Bai and Ramlal did not file any second appeal before the Board, meaning thereby, they were satisfied with the order of the SDO and that is why, neither first nor second appeals were preferred by them before the RAA and Board. The Board vide its judgment dated 16.03.2010 has allowed the second appeal submitted by Satnam by quashing and setting aside the judgments passed by the SDO and RAA against which the State as well as the petitioners approached this Court by way of filing two different writ petitions. The writ petition submitted by the petitioners-Kali Bai and Ram Lal was withdrawn vide order dated 16.07.2012 seeking liberty to avail the remedy available under the law and the writ petition submitted by the State was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.09.2016.
[WRW-248/2017]
Bharadwaj became the counsel for Satnam in those proceedings.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
KuD/64-65
2 issues framed by the court
Should the orders of 26.09.2016 and 16.07.2012 dismissing/withdrawing the writ petitions be recalled on grounds of alleged conflict of counsel interest?
Do Ram Lal and Kali Bai have locus standi to seek review when they never appealed the SDO and RAA decisions?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Rajasthan through the Tehsildar, Keshorai Patan
Satnam son of Shri Dhanna Singh @ Dhan Singh
Ram Lal son of Late Shri Gopal
Smt. Kali Bai widow of Late Shri Gopal
Anoop Kumar Dhand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
