Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt. Anita Choudhary Wife Of Jagdish ... vs Mohan Singh S/O Bhudhdaram on 11 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8561/2021
1. Smt. Anita Choudhary Wife Of Jagdish Prasad Choudhary,
Aged About 55 Years, R/o Khatu Mod Ringus, Tehsil Sri
Madhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)
2. Jagdish Prasad Choudhary Son Of Srichand, Aged About
60 Years, R/o Khatu Mod Ringus, Tehsil Sri Madhopur,
District Sikar (Raj.)
3. Sunita Ranwa Wife Of Radha Kishan, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Bhartiya Shikshan Sansthan, Ringus, Tehsil Sri
Madhopur, District Sikar
4. Sunil Kumar Son Of Pratap Singh, Aged About 42 Years,
R/o Lamba Gothada, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu
(Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Mohan Singh S/o Bhudhdaram, R/o Gudha, Tehsil Sri
Madhopur, District Sikar
2. Guljharilal Son Of Rajuram, R/o Kumharon Ka Mohalla,
Bharni, Tehsil Sri Madhopur, District Sikar
3. Vijaypal Singh S/o Richhpal Singh, R/o Bhairun Ji Ka Mod,
Leelon Ki Dhani, Ward No.24, Ringus, Tehsil Sri Madhopur,
District Sikar
4. Sandeep Kumar Dadiya Son Of Bhagwandas Dadiya, R/o
Gudha, Tehsil Sri Madhopur, District Sikar
5. Gajendra Singh Son Of Surajbhan Singh, R/o Malakali,
Tehsil Sri Madhopur, District Sikar
6. Premdevi D/o Maliram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Khatu
Mod Ringus, Tehsil Sri Madhopur, District Sikar
7. Administrator, Nagar Palika, Ringus, Tehsil Sri Madhopur,
District Sikar
8. Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Ringus, Tehsil Sri
Madhopur, District Sikar
9. Patwari Halka, Ringus, Tehsil Sri Madhopur, District Sikar
10. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Sri Madhopur,
District Sikar
11. Sub Registrar, Sri Madhopur, Tehsil Sri Madhopur, District
(Downloaded on 12/08/2021 at 09:53:03 PM)
(2 of 2) [CW-8561/2021]
Sikar
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Khedar For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 11/08/2021 The petitioners have preferred this writ petition assailing the order dated 19.10.2020 passed by the Member, Revenue Board whereby the notices were issued and ad interim stay order was passed directing for maintaining status quo. Learned counsel submits that the concerned case is not being listed and the interim order is continued. However, I find that so far as petitioners are concerned neither they have filed any reply before the Revenue Board nor they have moved any application for vacation of the stay.
If any application is moved, the Board of Revenue shall take up the matter and decide the same within a period of two months.
Granting aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is dismissed being not maintainable as against ex-parte interim order.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Arun/20 (Downloaded on 12/08/2021 at 09:53:03 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)