Allowed¶27

Amar Singh Jangir S/O Shri Banwari Lal Jangir v. Puranmal Jangir S/O Shri Moolchand Jangir

Rajasthan HC19 Sept 2025WMAP/370/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Extension of time; conditional quashing of order dated 09.01.2024; plantation of 21 saplings/shaded trees as condition; compliance report before Tribunal; cost of Rs.25,000/- to respondent; delay due to illness; 21 plants planted on 09.08.2025 in temple premises; Tribunal directed to take reply on record and proceed in accordance with law; WMAP 370/2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition 9176/2025; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench; Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.; decision dated 19/09/2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ miscellaneous application allowed; Tribunal directed to accept the reply submitted by the petitioner and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. ¶27

Amar Singh Jangir S/O Shri Banwari Lal Jangir Vs Puranmal Jangir S/O Shri Moolchand Jangir — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No.370/2025

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9176/2025

¶5

Amar Singh Jangir S/o Shri Banwari Lal Jangir, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Maulaheda, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Puranmal Jangir S/o Shri Moolchand Jangir, R/o Nyorana, Tehsil And District Neem Ka Thana (Rajasthan)

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish K. Saini For Respondent(s) :

¶11

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

19/09/2025

¶14

Instant writ misc. application has been submitted seeking extension of time granted by this Court vide order dated 01.07.2025 while deciding the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9176/2025 submitted by the petitioner.

¶15

Counsel submits that the aforesaid writ petition submitted by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court on 01.07.2025 with the following directions:

¶16

“5. Keeping in view the above principle in mind, the order dated 09.01.2024 stands quashed and set aside with the following two conditions:

¶17

(I) The petitioner would plant 21 saplings/plants of the shaded trees in public vicinity area. The aforesaid process would be carried out by him within a period of two

¶18

[WMAP-370/2025]

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

weeks from today and he will submit compliance report before the Tribunal with the undertaking that he will look after all these trees, till final disposal of the application pending against him. (II) In addition, the petitioner is further directed to pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent before the next date.

¶21

The reasons for passing the present order asking the petitioner to plant 21 saplings/plants is in the interest of public at large and for the greater public good. Planting trees is considered as an appropriate initiative as it will provide numerous benefits to the city and the surrounding community for decades and centuries. Future generations will get benefit from cleaner, fresh oxygen-rich environment.

¶22

In case, the petitioner fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, the order dated 09.01.2025 will come into play automatically and the written submission of the petitioner would not be taken into count. In case, the petitioner complies with the aforesaid conditions passed by this Court before the next date, then the reply submitted by the petitioner be taken on the record and the same be considered strictly in accordance with law.”

¶23

Counsel submits that slight delay has occurred in planting the saplings/plants owing to illness of the petitioner, but on 09.08.2025, 21 plants have been planted in the public vicinity i.e. a temple premises, hence, the order passed by this Court has been complied with, but slight delay has occurred. Counsel submits that these facts were brought into notice of the Tribunal, but the delay has come in the way of the petitioner. Hence, the direction issued by this Court has not been followed

¶24

[WMAP-370/2025]

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

by the Tribunal. Counsel submits that now due compliance of the order passed by this Court in para 5 has been done, so the Tribunal be directed to take the reply of the petitioner on the record.

¶27

Considering the above factual aspect of the matter, the instant writ misc. application stands allowed. The Tribunal is directed to accept the reply submitted by the petitioner and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

¶28

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶29

KuD/111

Amar Singh Jangir S/O Shri Banwari Lal Jangir v. Puranmal Jangir S/O Shri Moolchand Jangir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Singh Jangir S/O Shri Banwari Lal Jangir v. Puranmal Jangir S/O Shri Moolchand Jangir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.R. Filling Station Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt Sunita Sankhala Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Anish Kumar Dhayal S/O Shree Ram Vs Reserve Bank of India

M/S Rudra Security Suppliers Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Gupta S/O Late Shri Prahlad Rai Gupta Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dhanpat Singh Son of Sagat Singh Vs Umesh Son of Ranjeet