##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:14959]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6830/2026

1. Nanu Ram S/o Shri Nanda Ram, Aged About 53 Years, 2. Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Nanda Ram, Aged About 64 Years,

3. Mana Ram S/o Shri Ladu Ram, Aged About 65 Years, All above R/o Baba Ki Dhani, Village Nimod, Tehsil

Maulasar, District Didwana- Kuchaman (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. Bhagwati Devi W/o Pokar Ram, R/o Village Bansa, Tehsil Maulasar, District Didwana- Kuchaman (Raj.).

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through- The Tehsildar, Maulasar, District Didwana- Kuchaman (Raj.).

3. The Gram Panchayat Nimod, Tehsil Maulasar, District Didwana- Kuchaman (Raj.), Through Its Village

Development Officer.

4. The Manager, Central Bank Of India, Branch Kuchaman City, District Didwana- Kuchaman (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Nehra Mr. Madhaw Raj Choudhary

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshat Verma Mr. Chirag Mathur

Mr. Nikhil Saran

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

01/04/2026

1. By way of filing this writ petition, petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against ad-interim stay order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the Board of Revenue during course of hearing of revision petition No.1501/2026: titled as Bhagwati Devi

V/s. State of Rajasthan and ors.

2. Heard counsel for the petitioners so also counsel appearing

on behalf of respondent No.1 and perused the record.

(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 11:17:06 AM)

(Downloaded on 06/04/2026 at 08:25:51 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14959] (2 of 3) [CW-6830/2026] 3. The fundamental dispute exists between parties is in respect of availability of way in the land of Khasra No. 428, Revenue

Village Nimod, Tehsil Maulasar District Didwana-Kuchaman.

4. It appears that on the application of petitioners, Tehsildar, Maulasar vide order dated 18.03.2025 observed that as per the report of Halka Patwari, Nimod, a way in Khasra No.428 was existing for ingress/egress to Main Road from Khasra Nos. 417 and 420, which has been closed. Hence, Tehsildar constituted a

team and directed to open the way in the Khasra No. 428.

5. It appears that the order dated 18.03.2025 by the Tehsildar was passed without hearing to the affected i.e. person Khatedar of Khasra No.428, hence, she preferred appeal thereagainst before Additional District Collector, Didwana, registered as Appeal No. 09/2025, but same has been dismissed vide judgment dated 05.01.2026. Thereagainst affected khatedar namely Smt. Bhagwati Devi has preferred revision petition before the Board of Revenue. This Revision Petition has been registered on No. 1501/2026 and in this revision petition, ad interim stay order dated 09.03.2026, to maintain the status quo in respect of the way in question has been passed which has been challenged

herein.

6. Having heard the counsel for both parties and after perusal of the record, this Court finds that the revision petition is pending before the Board of Revenue, and yet to be adjudicated on merits. Impugned order dated 09.03.2026 is ad-interim in nature, which was passed, after hearing the petitioners as well but does not adjudicate/decide rights of either parties finally on merits. Any findings/observations made by this Court, in respect of way, may

(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 11:17:06 AM)

(Downloaded on 06/04/2026 at 08:25:51 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14959] (3 of 3) [CW-6830/2026] affect the merits of revision petition. Hence, instead of granting indulgence in the ad interim stay order dated 09.03.2026, this Court is of the opinion that since the issue involved is in respect of way in question, the Board of Revenue may take up the Revision Petition itself for hearing as early as possible and decide the same finally on merits. Counsel appearing for both parties undertake to cooperate the Board of Revenue to decide the revision petition

expeditiously as early as possible.

7. At the same time, it is hereby observed that since the dispute exists between two privat