Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan v. Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Through

Judgment

1. Banwari Lal Adopted Son Of Ramkumar, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Daroga Wali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Through Mukhtyaraam Jagdish Prasad Saini S/o Late Shri Chatruram Saini, R/o Rohida Vali Dhani, Tan Navladi, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu.

2. Babulal Son Of Banwarilal, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

3. Manju D/o Banvarilal, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

4. Madhu Daughter Of Banvarilal, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

5. Mahaveer Prasad Son Of Bhagwanaram, Aged About 78 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

6. Motiram Son Of Murali (Deceased), Aged About 90 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

7. Rajendra Prasad S/o Boduram (Deceased), Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

8. Sohan Lal S/o Maanguram, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (2 of 5) [CW-2850/2024] Rajasthan

9. Vimal Kumar S/o Maanguram, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

10. Radheshyam S/o Maanguram, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

11. Nemichand S/o Maanguram, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

12. Nathmal S/o Maanguram, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

13. Gita Devi D/o Maanguram, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

14. Usha Devi D/o Maanguram, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

15. Chiranjilal S/o Hardevaram, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

16. Ramchandra S/o Hardevaram, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

17. Tarachand S/o Hardevaram, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

Sushila Devi W/o Shri Bhanwarlal, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan (3 of 5) [CW-2850/2024]

19. Lohit S/o Bhanwarlal, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

20. Sonu S/o Bhanwarlal, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

21. Sulochana D/o Bhanwarlal, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

22. Kanchan D/o Bhanwarlal, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

23. Poonam D/o Bhanwarlal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

24. Lachchhi D/o Hardevaram, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

25. Prabhati D/o Hardevaram, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

26. Vimla D/o Hardevaram, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Daroga Vali Dhani, Ward Number 39, Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

27. Government Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar (Land Holder) Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumer Saini For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/08/2025 (4 of 5) [CW-2850/2024]

1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner (for short, ‘the petitioner’) under Sections 53, 88, 92A and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act of 1955’) is pending before the Sub Divisional Officer, Navalgarh (for short, ‘the SDO’) wherein a stay application under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 was also submitted by the petitioner and an interim order was passed on 14.06.2022 directing the parties to maintain the status quo. Counsel submits that the said order was assailed by the respondents before the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short, the RAA) by way of filing an appeal under Section 225 of the Act of 1955 and the order dated 14.06.2022 of the SDO was stayed by the RAA vide order dated 06.07.2022. Counsel submits that against the aforesaid order, a revision petition was submitted by the petitioner under Section 230 of the Act of 1955 before the Board of Revenue (for short, ‘the Board’) and the same was disposed of by the Board vide order dated 14.09.2023 by issuing direction to the SDO to decide the stay application filed by the petitioner under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 after hearing both parties in view of the provisions under Order 39 Rule 3A CPC within a period of one month and for a period of one month, the parties were directed to maintain the status quo. Counsel submits that the aforesaid application has not been decided by the SDO as yet and in the meantime, one of the respondent has passed away and an application for substitution of his legal representative was submitted and the said application is also still lying pending before the SDO. Counsel submits that in the meantime, the respondents submitted an application under Section 221 of the Act of 1955 (5 of 5) [CW-2850/2024] before the Board and the said application was allowed ex parte vide impugned order dated 16.01.2024 and the order dated

14.09.2023 has been recalled to the extent of maintaining the status quo by both sides. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

2. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

3. Perusal of the record indicates that the order dated

14.09.2023 passed by the Board has not been complied with by the SDO inspite of passing of almost twenty two months and still the application under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 submitted before the SDO is lying pending and has not been decided yet under Order 39 Rule 3-A CPC.

4. This Courts deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition by issuing a direction to the SDO to decide the said application submitted by the petitioner under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 expeditiously as early as possible, preferably not beyond the period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order strictly in accordance with law.

5. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Ashu/7 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J