HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3091/1995 Akharam ----Petitioner Versus State And Ors ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajvendra Sarswat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

20/04/2026 I. A. No.02/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on an application seeking deletion of prayer No.1 from the present writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has inadvertently challenged the validity of Rule 14 (4) of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 and therefore, learned counsel does not want to press the said prayer.

3. The said prayer for deletion, as made in the application, has not been opposed by learned counsel for respondent.

4. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Prayer No.1 of the writ petition is ordered to be deleted, as not pressed.

I. A. No.01/2026

1. Matter comes up on an application for recalling the ex-parte order dated 10.02.2026.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in absence of petitioner’s counsel, the application filed by respondent No.6 for impleading respondent in the writ petition was allowed and he has been impleaded as respondent No.6.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the issue involved in present case is between petitioner and respondent–State of Rajasthan, and since no relief has been sought against the newly added respondent, M/s NTPC Renewable Energy Limited, its impleadment is not justified.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner relies upon the judgment passed by this Hon’ble High Court in the case of RIICO Ltd. Jaipur Vs. Board of Revenue: SB Civil Writ Petition No.3089/2012 decided on 11.04.2012.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submits that, in the intervening period during which the petition was dismissed in default and subsequently restored, the land in question has been allotted to respondent No. 6 — M/s NTPC Renewable Energy Limited, therefore, rights have accrued in favour of respondent No. 6.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. This Court is of the considered opinion that, since the land in question has already been allotted to M/s NTPC Renewable Energy Ltd. during the period when the writ petition stood dismissed and subsequently restored, valuable rights have been created in favour of respondent No. 6, and the outcome of the writ petition is certainly going to affect the rights of the said respondent-M/s NTPC Renewable Energy Ltd.

8. This Court has also considered the judgment in RIICO Ltd., Jaipur (supra), relied upon by petitioner, and is of the considered opinion that the same was rendered in relation to an order passed by Board of Revenue refusing to implead the petitioner therein as a party respondent in the proceedings, on the ground that private respondents therein had contested the suit for nine years and, after final verdict, rights had accrued in favour of petitioner, that too on the basis of an illegal recommendation. The facts of the said judgment are not akin to the peculiar facts of the present case, therefore, reliance placed by petitioner on the said judgment is not justified.

9. In view of the observations made above, this Court does not find any justified reason to recall the order dated 10.02.2026.

10. Accordingly, the application is dismissed I. A. No.03/2026

1. Matter comes up on an application filed by respondent No.6 praying for vacation of the interim order dated 30.10.1995 passed by this Court.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that interim order dated 30.10.1995 passed by this Court, has already been confirmed vide order dated 18.01.2001 and stay application has been disposed of, however, the present application has been filed by newly added respondent along with reply to the writ petition.

3. It is stated that several new facts have been averred in the reply filed by the respondent No.6, thus, some time is prayed for filing rejoinder.

4. Last opportunity is g