Disposed

Hari Singh S/O Late Shri Sardara v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Sept 2026CW/17323/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought direction for entry of names in revenue record of agricultural land. Court disposed of the petition following similar directions issued in Mukesh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, directing petitioners to file a fresh application within two weeks for respondents to decide within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to decide fresh application for conferment of rights by petitioners filed within two weeks within six weeks.

Hari Singh S/O Late Shri Sardara Vs State of Rajasthan — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:35150]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17323/2026

¶4

CNR: RJHC020841872026 | URN: CW / 36219U / 2026

¶5

Hari Singh S/o Late Shri Sardara, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Kawarpura., Tehsil Kotputli, Distt. Kotputli-Behror, (Rajasthan).

¶6

Ramesh S/o Late Shri Sardara, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Kawarpura,, Tehsil Kotputli, Distt. Kotputli-Behror, (Rajasthan).

¶7

Surendra Singh S/o Late Shri Banwari Lal, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Kawarpura, Tehsil Kotputli, Distt. Kotputli-Behror, (Rajasthan).

¶8

Mahendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Banwari Lal, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Kawarpura, Tehsil Kotputli, Distt. Kotputli-Behror, (Rajasthan).

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶12

The District Collector, District Kotputli-Behror, Rajasthan. 3. The Tehsildar-Cum-Managing Officer (Custodian), Kotputli, District Kotputli-Behror, Rajasthan.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Ram Kishan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Choudhary & Mr. Yadvendra Patel for Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG

¶15

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶16

Order

¶17

01/09/2026

¶18

The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners with the following prayer:-

[2026:RJ-JP:35150]

[CW-17323/2026]

(2 of 4)

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to accept and allow the Writ Petition and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

¶23

The entire record relating to this case may kindly be called for and after perusing the same direct the respondents to enter the name of Petitioners in the revenue record for agricultural land bearing Khasra numbers 389 & 390 situated at Bhaloji Tehsil Kotputli, Distt. Kotputli-Behror, (Rajasthan).

¶24

By any other appropriate writ, order or direction if any order prejudice to the right of the Petitioners which may be passed during the pendency of the Writ Petition may also be declared null and void being without jurisdiction and be quashed and set aside and name of the Petitioners be entered in Revenue Record as entered in similarly situated persons as per directions of the Hon'ble Court in the in the Judgment dated 30.03.1993 passed in S.B. C.W.P. No. 1878/1982 Iswar Vs. State and the compliance of the order has been made by the Respondent.

¶25

Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶26

By way of filing the instant writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents-authorities concerned to enter the names of the petitioners in the revenue record.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved in the instant petition has already been set at rest by this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13585/2020 (Mukesh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) vide order dated 22.04.2024. Learned counsel submits that the instant writ petition be also disposed of in light of the similar directions issued in the case of Mukesh (supra).

[2026:RJ-JP:35150]

(3 of 4)

[CW-17323/2026]

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State admits the above factual aspect of the matter and submitted that the instant writ petition be disposed of in light of the similar directions issued in the case of Mukesh (supra).

¶32

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶33

Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and looking to the fact that similar controversy has already been decided by this Court in the case of Mukesh (supra) with the following observations in Para Nos.6 & 7:-

¶34

“6. The present writ petitions stand disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to approach the respondents by filing a fresh application for conferment of their right and the respondents are directed to decide the said representation by keeping in mind the decision passed by this Court in SBCWP No. 1878/1982 [Ishwar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.] (supra) and subsequent decisions.

¶35

In case, the petitioners file representation within a period of two weeks, the same may be decided by the respondents in expeditious manner but in no case later than six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.”

¶36

Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of in light of the similar directions issued in the case of Mukesh (supra). The petitioners would be at liberty to approach the respondents by way of filing a fresh application for conferment of their rights and the respondents are directed to decide the application by keeping in mind the order passed by this Court in

¶37

[2026:RJ-JP:35150] (4 of 4) [CW-17323/2026]

¶38

the case of Ishwar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1878/1982 on 30.03.1983. 8. Needless to observe that if the petitioners file a fresh application as aforesaid within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, the respondents would expedite the application and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter.

¶39

Stay application as well as all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶40

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶41

24/Karan

Hari Singh S/O Late Shri Sardara v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Singh S/O Late Shri Sardara 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases