HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9353/2022

1.

Jagmala Ram S/o Shri Ganga Ram Ji Vishnoi, Aged About

45 Years, By Caste Vishnoi, R/o Gilakor, Tehsil Shergarh,

Distt. Jodhpur.

2.

Babu Ram S/o Shri Naina Ram Vishnoi, Aged About 52

Years, By Caste Vishnoi, R/o Loda Haridasota Tehsil

Shergarh Distt. Jodhpur.

3.

Mangilal S/o Shri Tulcharam Vishnoi, Aged About 33

Years, By Caste Vishnoi, R/o Ugraas Tehsil Phalodi, Distt.

Jodhpur.

4.

Naini W/o Mohan Lal Vishnoi, Aged About 46 Years, By

Caste Vishnoi, R/o Dayasagar, Distt. Jodhpur.

5.

Harsukh Ram S/o Shri Jagmalala Ram Vishnoi, Aged

About 44 Years, R/o Sanwrij Tehsil Phalodi, Distt. Jodhpur.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

Kalwant Rai S/o Malu Ram Ji, By Caste Rajpurohit, R/o

59, R.b. Kumharwala, Tehsil Shri Rai Singh Nagar, Distt.

Shri Ganganagar, Raj.

2.

Kanwer Lal.

3.

Mahendra Kumar.

4.

Damodar.

All sons of Harnarayan, By Caste Brahmin, all residents of

Ranisar, Phalodi, Distt. Jodhpur.

5.

Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer.

6.

Additional District Collector, Phalodi.

7.

Tehsildar, Phalodi, Distt. Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. J. Gehlot.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

23/01/2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2 of 4)

[CW-9353/2022]

The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 02.09.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer

whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners has been

rejected.

Briefly the facts necessary to be noted are that the

petitioners after having purchased the land by way of sale deed

got the land mutated in their names. The mutation entries

entered in the names of the petitioners were challenged by the

respondent No.1 by way of filing a Revenue Appeal No.66/2014.

The petitioners after issuance of the notices participated in the

proceedings and the appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 was

allowed vide order dated 02.08.2016 and the matter was

remanded back for adjudication after giving reasonable

opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The order passed by

the Additional District Collector, Phalodi on 02.08.2016 was

challenged by the petitioners before the Additional Divisional

Commissioner, Jodhpur who allowed the appeal filed by the

petitioners vide its order dated 15.12.2017. The respondent No.1

preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer

and the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 02.09.2021 set

aside the order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the Additional

Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur upholding the order dated

02.08.2016 passed by the Additional District Collector, Phalodi.

Aggrieved against the order dated 02.09.2021 passed by the

Board of Revenue, Ajmer, the petitioners have preferred the

present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the first

appellate court has committed an error while entertaining the

singular appeal against four mutation entries made by the

(3 of 4)

[CW-9353/2022]

Tehsildar in the names of four different persons. He submits that

for four different mutation entries, singular appeal could not have

been entertained and therefore, the Additional District Collector,

Phalodi has committed an error while entertaining the appeal and

deciding the same vide order dated 02.08.2016. He, therefore,

prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the order passed

by the Additional District Collector, Phalodi and the order dated

02.09.2021 passed by learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer may be

quashed and set aside.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and considered the

relevant record of the case including the order dated 02.08.2016

passed by the Additional District Collector, Phalodi as well as the

order dated 02.09.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer.

The land purchased by the petitioners was mut