[2026:RJ-JD:7496]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23378/2025

1. Dhiya W/o Sabrang Khan, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Habur, Tehsil District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

2. Malu Khan S/o Sabrang Khan, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Habur, Tehsil District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

3. Melu Khan S/o Sabrang Khan, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Habur, Tehsil District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

4. Thane Khan S/o Sabrang Khan, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Habur, Tehsil District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

2. The Assistant Collector And Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

3. Tehsildar Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Subodh Jangid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Judgment

10/02/2026

1. Present writ petition is filed with following prayers: -

“(i) By an appropriate order or direction, the respondent may kindly be directed to decide the temporary injunction application under Section 212 of Tenancy Act filed by the petitioner, and till the decision, petitioner may kindly not to be dispossessed from the said land which is mentioned.

(ii) By an appropriate order or direction the respondent may kindly be directed to respondent authorities to exclude the petitioners land which is situated in Khasra No. 518.

(iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) The writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed.”

2. While explaining facts of present case, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that a revenue suit has been filed seeking declaration of Khatedari rights and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 518, ad-measuring 50 Bighas (“land in question”). An application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“Act of 1955”) was also filed along with said suit, however, same has not been decided till date and the matter is being adjourned for one or the other reason.

3. In para 3 of reply to writ petition, filed on behalf of respondents, it has been stated that writ petition has been filed under wrong assumption and, as a matter of fact, the land in question is not proposed for declaring “Oran” in name of ‘Ma Swangiyarai’, as claimed by petitioner in the writ petition. It is thus contended that no cause of action as such arises to challenge the action of respondents.

4. Be that as it may, suit as well as application filed under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 is still pending consideration before Competent Authority, and a specific prayer has been made by learned counsel for petitioner for issuing appropriate directions to respondent No. 2 to decide pending application expeditiously.

5. In view of limited submissions made at the Bar, present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the application of petitioner filed under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No. 2 is further directed to decide said application independently and strictly in accordance with law, and in a time-bound manner, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

6. Till the time said application is finally decided, status quo with regard to land in question shall be maintained by both parties.

7. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(SANJEET PUROHIT),J

148-praveen/-