HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Writ Misc Application No. 383/2025 Kavita Jain W/o Lalit Kumar Jain, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 96, Sarv Ritu Vilas, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur, Through Its Commissioner.

3. Secretary, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.

4. Deputy Inspector General, Registration And Stamps, District Udaipur.

5. Sub-Registrar-I, Udaipur. 6. Sub-Registrar-II, Udaipur.

7. Tehsildar, Girwa, District Udaipur.

8. Tehsildar, Badgaon, District Udaipur. 9. Tehsildar, Kurabad, District Udaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Samyak Dalal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Purohit Mr. Hanuman Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

13/11/2025

1. The present miscellaneous application is filed seeking correction of errors relating to following aspects:

i. Substitution of words “letter dt.24.02.2025 (Annex.1)” in place of “letter dated 19.03.2025” in last line of Para-3.

ii. The facts and contentions relating to the issue of sub-

division and re-constitution of plots and findings thereon as referred in para-16, 17, 35, 35.1, 36 & 38 requires and deserves to be modified as the said issue was made for other matters which were disposed of simultaneously along with the present batch of writ petitions.

iii. Substitution of words “letter dt.18.07.2012(Annex.20)” in replace of “proceedings dt.29.10.2021 (Annex.22) in Para-

19).

iv. Deletion of the word “intervenors” in the contentions in para 23, 24, 25, & 27 as there were no intervenor(s) in this batch of writ petition and they did not advance any arguments for the same.

v. Alteration of Section-90 A to Section-90 B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1956’) in para 30 & 31.

2. Dealing with the first error, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged the communications dated 27.02.2025 and 28.02.2025. Such communications were in compliance with the order dated 24.02.2025; however, while adverting to the case in para 3, instead of 24.02.2025, the date 19.03.2025 was adverted to, which is only a typographical error and requires correction.

3. Dealing with the second error occurred in para 16, 17, 35 35.1, 36 & 38, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the present batch of writ petition, there was no issue of sub-division and reconstitution of plots; however, sub-division and reconstitution arguments were also referred to in judgment under correction. This was also on account of some other writ petitions which were also heard on the same day in which sub-division and reconstitution was also an issue and for that vary reason their arguments were also adopted in the present batch of writ petitions.

4. Dealing with the third error, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submit that in para 19 of the judgment the proceeding dated 29.10.2021 (Annex.22) is referred instead of the letter dated 18.07.2012 (Annex.20) which is a pure typographical error.

5. Dealing with the fourth error, the learned Senior Counsel further submits that in the present batch of writ petitions there were no intervenors; however, intervenors’ arguments were also referred to in the judgment under correction. This was on account of some other writ petitions which were also heard on the same day in which intervenor applications were filed and allowed, and for that reason their arguments were also adopted in the present batch of writ petitions though they were not impleaded. This factual position is not disputed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

6. Dealing with the fifth error occurred in para 30 & 31, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the ca