Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Dwarka vs Maliram Nitharwal And Ors on 28 May, 2019

Bench: Chief Justice, G R Moolchandani

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

        D.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 197/2018

Dwarka Son Of Late Shankar, By Caste Kumawat, R/o. Waard
No. 14, Ringus, District Sikar.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     Maliram Nitharwal Son Of Chothuram Nitharwal, R/o.
       Opp. Ambedkar School, Ward No. 17, Ringus, District
       Sikar.
2.     The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
       Local Self Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.     The Director, Local Self Government, Near Corporate
       Office, 22 Godam, Jaipur.
4.     District Collector, Sikar Rajasthan.
5.     Municipal Board, Ringus, District Sikar, Through Its
       Executive Officer.
6.     Teekamchand Son Of Nathuram, By Caste Balai, Meeno
       Ka Mohalla, Srimadhopur, District Sikar.
7.     Nathu Ram Son Of Devaram
8.     Shibhu Dayal Son Of Shri Nathu Ram
9.     Mangal Chand Son Of Nathu Ram
10.    Raju Son Of Nathu Ram, All By Caste Balai R/o. Ward No.
       15, Ringus, District Sikar.
11.    Babu Lal Son Of Buga Ram
12.    Girdhari Son Of Shankar
13.    Laxmi Narain Son Of Chhotu Ram, All By Caste Kumawat,
       R/o. Ward No. 14, Ringus, District Sikar.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Sharma on behalf of Mr. Vidhut Gupta For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:38:35 AM) (2 of 2) [WMAP-197/2018] Order 28/05/2019
1. We have heard Counsel for the applicant/respondent, who contends that without being heard, his rights are sought to be affected by the order dated 18.09.2017.
2. This Court is of the opinion that there is nothing in the said order prejudicial to the applicant/respondent, who claims that a suit for correction of revenue entry is pending. That, of course, will be decided on its merit and in accordance with law.
3. The application is accordingly dismissed.
4. Other pending application also stands dismissed.

(G R MOOLCHANDANI),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR /15 (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:38:35 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)