[2025:RJ-JD:52613]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23652/2025 Manish Karnani S/o Shri Ramesh Karnani, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Roda, Tehsil Nokha, District - Bikaner, Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Shri Gopal Mundhra S/o Shri Champa Lal Mundhra, R/o Village Sinthal, Tehsil And District - Bikaner, At Present Residing At 159, Ravindra Sarani Tal, 9 Bada Bazar, Kokata.

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, District - Bikaner, Raj.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Acharya for Mr. Nishank Madhan HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

05/12/2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Briefly noted facts of the present writ petition are that the respondent No.1 applied before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bikaner under Section 136 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 claiming khatedari rights over land in Gram Sinthal, Patwar Halka Sinthal, Tehsil Napasar, Khasra No.803 measuring about 4.8100 hectares on 11.05.2023. In the revenue record, the name of respondent No.1 appears as ‘Ram Gopal’ instead of ‘Shri Gopal Mundhra’, and the various documents show that both are the same person and in the latest revenue record only the name ‘Ram Gopal’ is mentioned. The petitioner purchased the disputed land on 24.05.2023 from Ramgopal @ Jagdish S/o Late Champa Lal Mundhra by paying the consideration amount and took possession of the land in question. After purchase of the land in question, the petitioner came to know that the respondent No.1 had filed an application for change/correction in the revenue record, so the petitioner sought impleadment, and the same was allowed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Late Champa Lal Mundhra had three sons and eight daughters; the daughters have given the affidavits stating that Shri Gopal and Ram Gopal are different person and that Ram Gopal is also known as Jagdish Prashad, therefore, Jagdish Ram and Ram Gopal is the same person. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate heard the arguments of both sides on application filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 136 of the Land Revenue Act and, after considering the facts, rejected the application filed by the respondent No.1 on 11.11.2024. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.1 filed an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act before the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner, who allowed the appeal of the respondent No.1 vide order dated 12.09.2025. The petitioner then being aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2025 filed an appeal under Section 76 of the Land Revenue Act before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, and the learned Board heard the arguments on the stay application on 14.10.2025 but did not pass any order on stay application and only called for the record of lower-court. The civil and revenue suits are pending between the parties and if the name of Shri Gopal is entered in the revenue record on the basis of order passed by Divisional Commissioner, then the sale deed in favour of the petitioner will automatically be treated as null and void. Therefore, being aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2025 passed by learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner preferred an appeal under Section 76 of the Land Revenue Act before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer along with stay application. He submits that the Board of Revenue, Ajmer on 14.10.2025 admitted the appeal and called for the record of the lower courts and posted the matter on 02.02.2026. He submits that the Board of Revenue has not granted interim relief, which is causing severe prejudice to the petitioner, therefore it is prayed that the respondents shall be directed to make changes in the revenue entries who shall consider the parties’ rights and know the efficacious remedy to come before this Court.

5. I have considered the submissions made