HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23943/2025 Magraj S/o Shri Badri Narayan, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Osiyan District Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehildar Osiyan, District Jodhpur.

2. Ladu Ram S/o Gokal Ram, Residence Of Osiyan District Jodhpur.

3. Khushal Ram S/o Gordhan Ram, Residence Of Osiyan District Jodhpur.

4. Sewa Ram S/o Ram Jeevan, Residence Of Osiyan District Jodhpur.

5. Shyam Sundar S/o Ram Jeevan, Residence Of Osiyan District Jodhpur.

6. Nand Kishore S/o Ram Jeevan, Residence Of Osiyan District Jodhpur.

7. Kana Ram S/o Urja Ram, R/o Dhundhadiya, Tehsil Osiya District Jodhpur.

8. Gram Panchayat, Osiyan District Jodhpur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rameshwar Lal Dave For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal, GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

17/03/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.09.2025 (Annexure-3), whereby, in proceedings arising out of an application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“Act of 1955”), the learned Assistant Collector, Osian, passed an ex parte interim order in favour of the Tehsildar, Osian, directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the land in question as well as the corresponding revenue record.

2. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (“RAA”), Jodhpur, whereby the appeal preferred against the aforesaid order has been disposed of without any interference with the ad interim order, and the learned Assistant Collector, Osian, has been directed to decide the application under Section 212 of the Act of

1955 within a period of two months.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as a matter of fact, the proceedings initiated by the Tehsildar, Osian under Section 175 of the Act of 1955 are barred by limitation, having been instituted after a delay of more than 40 years. It is further contended that, since the land in question already stands converted, the learned Assistant Collector lacks jurisdiction to entertain the said proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, submits that the ad interim order passed by the learned Assistant Collector, Osian, is without jurisdiction and amounts to unwarranted interference.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, although the learned RAA, Jodhpur, vide order dated 13.10.2025, had specifically directed the Court of the Assistant Collector, Osian, to decide the pending application under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 within a period of two months, the matter has been adjourned repeatedly and has not been decided till date.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal, submits that the issues with regard to limitation as well as jurisdiction are to be decided on merits by the Court of the Assistant Collector, Osian, as an application under Order VII Rule

11 CPC, as well as another application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, are already pending consideration. It is further submitted that the next date of hearing in the matter is 01.04.2026.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. Since the main application filed under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 is still pending adjudication before the Court of the Assistant Collector, Osian, this Court does not deem it appropriate to comment upon the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to limitation or jurisdiction concerning the maintainability of the proceedings. However, this Court finds it rather anomalous that, on one hand, the Court of the Assistant Collector, Osian has granted an ex parte interim order, while on the other hand, despite specific directions issued by the learned RAA, Jodhpur, the application under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 has not been decided within the time period stipulated in the order dated

13.10.2025.

9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court