##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:22619]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10281/2026

Pata Ram S/o Shri Deva Ram, Aged About 78 Years, Resident Of

Ward No. 6, Chak 2 Sty, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar

(Rajasthan)-335707.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,

Revenue Department, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The District Collector, Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).

3. The Sub-Division Magistrate, Gharsana, District Sri

Ganganagar (Rajasthan).

4. The Tehsildar (Revenue), Gharsana, District Sri

Ganganagar (Rajasthan).

5. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through

Regional Officer, Hanumangarh

6. Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Lalchand, Resident Of Chak 2Sty,

Tehsil Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Singh Rathore

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal, GC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

12/05/2026

1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that proceedings were

initiated by the petitioner challenging the conversion order dated

12.08.2025 issued in favour of the private respondent for

conversion of land for non-agricultural purposes (Bricks Kiln).

Challenge so given by petitioner was rejected by Revenue

Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.02.2026 at the admission

stage.

(Uploaded on 13/05/2026 at 09:01:18 AM)

(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:07:56 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:22619] (2 of 3) [CW-10281/2026]

2. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred an appeal before

learned Board of Revenue (“BOR”), which was registered as

Appeal No. 1581/2026.

3. While inviting attention of this Court to the order-sheets of

Appeal No.1581/2026 pending before learned Board of Revenue,

it is submitted that appeal was initially listed on 19.02.2026, on

which date same was duly admitted and notices were issued to

respondents. Thereafter, matter was finally heard at length and

judgment was reserved on 10.04.2026. However, in a wholly

surprising and procedurally irregular manner, the very same

Bench, instead of pronouncing the judgment reserved on

10.04.2026, proceeded to pass an order dated 23.04.2026

whereby appeal was once again taken up at the stage of

admission and stay application preferred by petitioner was

rejected, and matter was thereafter posted for further

proceedings on 01.06.2026.

4. This Court is of the opinion that once final arguments in the

appeal had been heard and matter had been reserved for final

judgment, there could not have been any justified reason to again

hear arguments on the question of admission of the appeal on

23.04.2026, particularly when the appeal had already been

admitted on 19.02.2026 and judgment had been reserved on

10.04.2026.

This Court is of prima facie opinion that the manner in

which proceedings were conducted by Bench concerned is

contrary to the settled principles of judicial propriety and

fairness, thereby undermining the sanctity and credibility

expected of a quasi-judicial forum.

(Uploaded on 13/05/2026 at 09:01:18 AM)

(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:07:56 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:22619] (3 of 3) [CW-10281/2026]

5. Matter is of serious nature and requires consideration.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner is directed to supply a copy of

writ petition to learned counsel Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal, GC, who

shall complete his instructions with regard to the manner in which

the proceedings were undertaken by concerned Member of BOR.

7. Registry is directed to reflect the name of Mr. Sanjay Raj

Paliwal, GC, as counsel for respondents, in the cause list.

8. A copy of this order be forthwith transmitted to the

Chairman of learned Board of Revenue, who shall seek an

explanation from the Member concerned with regard to the

manner in which proceedings were conducted and thereafter

submit a comprehensive report before this Court on or before

25.05.2026.

9. List the matter on 25.05.2026.

(SANJEET PUROHIT),J

41-yagya/-

(Uploaded on 13/05/2026 at 09:01:18 AM)

(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 04:07:56 AM)