[2026:RJ-JD:8896]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17934/2024

1. Parkha S/o Shri Jerupa, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of Rah, Tehsil Bagoda, District Jalore (Raj.).

2. Kala S/o Shri Jerupa, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Rah, Tehsil Bagoda, District Jalore (Raj.).

3. Mana S/o Shri Jerupa, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Rah, Tehsil Bagoda, District Jalore (Raj.).

4. Jonu S/o Shri Jerupa, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Rah, Tehsil Bagoda, District Jalore (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Tehsildar Bagoda, District Jalore (Raj.).

2. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Rah, Tehsil Bagoda, District Jalore (Raj.).

3. Godha S/o Shri Kevda, R/o Rah, Tehsil Bagoda, District Jalore (Raj.).

4. State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur, Merged In State Bank Of India, Through Branch Manager, Krishi Vikas Branch Bhinmal.

5. Marwar Gramin Bank, Through Branch Manager Dhmbida.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lakshya Singh Chundawat.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

17/02/2026

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 18.09.2024, passed by learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali, in Revenue Appeal No. 87/2024, whereby prayer of petitioners for grant of interim relief was rejected.

2. Explaining the facts of present case, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhinmal, Jalore, vide its order dated 30.08.2024, allowed the application of private respondents filed under Section 251-A of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and directed the recording of a public way through the land of petitioners.

3. Challenging said order dated 30.08.2024, an appeal was filed before Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali. After considering the arguments advanced on behalf of petitioners-appellants, as well as by the counsel for caveator – respondents, Appellate Authority refused to grant interim relief in favour of petitioners.

4. Said order has been challenged before this Court on the ground that if an interim order is not passed by First Appellate Court and impugned order under Section 251-A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is allowed to be implemented, the very purpose of filing statutory appeal would be frustrated. This Court, while issuing notice to respondents, vide its order dated 07.11.2024, passed an interim order directing parties to maintain status quo with regard to the land in question.

5. Along with the reply to present writ petition, an application for vacation of interim order has also been filed.

6. With the consent of parties, matter was heard finally.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that as a matter of fact, during the pendency of present writ petition, learned Revenue Appellate Authority had not proceeded with final adjudication of the appeal, however, in the meantime, same was dismissed for default.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as a matter of fact, the appeal was dismissed due to inadvertent non- appearance of petitioners’ counsel and a restoration application has already been filed.

9. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the interest of justice would be served by relegating parties to pursue the restoration application and appeal itself before learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that in the meantime, interim order dated 07.11.2024 passed by this Court may be allowed to operate between parties.

10. In view of the submissions made, present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to petitioner to pursue the restoration application filed before learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali. Said restoration application shall be decided by the Authority in accordance with law, within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

11. Learned Revenue Appellate Authority is further directed that, if restoration of appeal to its original number is