Piplu, District Tonk, Rajasthan v. Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk, Rajasthan

Judgment

1. Laxminarayan S/o Jagdish @ Jagannath, Resident of Piplu Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk, Rajasthan

2. Lada Devi D/o Jagdish @ Jagannath, Resident of Piplu Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk, Rajasthan

3. Phoola Devi W/o Jagdish @ Jagannath, Resident of Piplu Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk, Rajasthan

4. Santosh W/o Ghasi, Resident of Piplu Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk, Rajasthan

5. Himanshu S/o Ghasi, Resident of Piplu Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk, Rajasthan

6. Asha Devi D/o Ghasi, Resident of Piplu Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk, Rajasthan

7. Mandir Murti Baba Ramdev Ji Maharaj, Bairwa Samaj Piplu District Tonk (Rajasthan).

8. State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Piplu, District Tonk (Rajasthan).

9. Sub-Registrar Piplu, District Tonk.

10. Badri S/o Kana, Resident of Piplu Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk, Rajasthan

11. Ratan S/o Kana, Resident of Piplu Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk, Rajasthan

12. Suraj S/o Kana, Resident of Piplu Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk, Rajasthan

13. Sugna D/o Kana Wife of Sitaram, Resident of Piplu Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk, Rajasthan

14. Bhuli W/o Kana, Resident of Piplu Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk, Rajasthan

15. Ramchandra S/o Deva, Resident of Piplu Tehsil Piplu, [2025:RJ-JP:17930] (2 of 4) [CW-3848/2025] District Tonk, Rajasthan

16. Prabhudevi W/o Laxman, Resident of Piplu Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Hans Kumar Sharma Mr. Avinash Meghwal For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 29/04/2025

1. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed a revenue suit before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Piplu, District Tonk along with Temporary Injunction Application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC whereon an interim order was passed on

18.07.2023 directing the respondents to maintain status quo and the case was posted for 11.08.2023. It appears that the respondents submitted a time barred appeal against the above order before the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short, ‘the RAA’) along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act but without passing any order on the said condonation application and without condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the RAA vide order dated 22.11.2024 stayed the execution/operation of the order dated 18.07.2023 and the matter was remitted to the SDO for passing fresh orders within a period of thirty days, in the light of the provisions contained under Order 39 Rule 3(A) CPC. Counsel submits that against the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a revision petition under Section 230 read with Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and the said petition was disposed of by the Board of Revenue (herein after referred to as [2025:RJ-JP:17930] (3 of 4) [CW-3848/2025] ‘Board’) vide order dated 03.01.2025 upholding the order dated

22.11.2024 passed by the RAA and while rejecting the revision petition again a direction was issued by the Board to the SDO to decide the stay application within a period of thirty days. Counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of two repeated directions issued by the RAA as well as by the Board wherein a clear and specific direction was issued for deciding the temporary injunction application within a period of thirty days, till date, the temporary injunction application has not been decided and taking the benefits of the aforesaid situation, the respondents have sold the land in question by way of a registered sale deed on 13.02.2025. Counsel submits that in the aforesaid sale deed, the total sale consideration amount is stated to be Rs. 15 lakhs out of which Rs. 7 lakhs have been given in cash. Counsel submits that recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution Vs. B. Gunashekar and Anr. while deciding Civil Appeal No. 5200/2025 vide order dated

16.04.2025 has issued a general direction to all the Courts of the country that whenever, it comes to the knowledge of any Income Tax Authority that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- or above has been paid by way of consideration in any transaction relating to any immovable property from any other source or during the course of search or assessment proceedings, the failure of the registering authority shall be brought to the knowledge of the Chief Secretary of the State/UT for initiating appropriate disciplinary action against such officer who failed to intimate the transactions. Counsel submits that till date, the aforesaid directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court has not been complied with by the SDO and [2025:RJ-JP:17930] (4 of 4) [CW-3848/2025] the temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner have not been decided on its merit, hence, under these circumstances, appropriate direction be issued.

2. Considering the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that not only once but twice repeated directions have been issued by the RAA as well as by the Board to the SDO to decide the stay application filed by the petitioner considering the provisions contained under Order 39 Rule 1, 2 and 3(A) CPC, but the said application has not been decided by the SDO for the reasons best known to him and taking benefit of the aforesaid situation, the land in question has been sold and without going into the controversy on its merit and demerits as the matter is still sub judice before the SDO, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present writ petition, in the interest of both the parties with direction to the SDO to make strict compliance of the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the RAA and the order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the Board in its letter and spirit and also keeping in view the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B. Gunashekar (Supra).

3. Needless to observe that the order would be complied by the SDO within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

4. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Ashu/6 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J