Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Shiv Lal Panwar vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 July, 2026
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2026:RJ-JP:32570]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14598/2026
CNR: RJHC010675042026
URN: CW / 26655U / 2026
Shiv Lal Panwar S/o Shri Ghisa Ram, aged about 56 years, R/o
Village Dodiyana, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary (Revenue),
Department of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Lal Panwar, petitioner in
person
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.R. Paliwal, GC.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
18/07/2026
1. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following
prayers:
“(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the
impugned transfer order dated 10.07.2026 Annex.8
may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the
petitioner.”
2. Petitioner, present in person, at the outset, submits that the
controversy involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by the
order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench in the
case of “Chhagan Lal Patel v. Board of Revenue” : SBCWP
No.2990/2024; wherein the petitioner, who was working as an
Inspector (Land Records), was transferred within the division,
however, there was no specific place of posting mentioned in the
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 02:00:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 08:06:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32570] (2 of 3) [CW-14598/2026]
transfer order. The order dated 01.03.2024 passed in the case of
Chhagan Lal (supra), is reproduced hereunder:
“1. The present writ petition has been preferred against
Order No.1429 dated 22.02.2024 passed by the Board of
Revenue, Ajmer whereby the petitioner, who is working as
Inspector (Land Records), has been sought to be
transferred from Tehsil Sirohi to Sanchore.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that firstly
the order impugned is incomplete one as no specific place
of posting has been mentioned and secondly, the transfer
is within the division and as per the Rule 173 of the
Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1957’), it is only
the Divisional Commissioner who is competent to transfer
the Revenue Inspector within the division. He submits
that the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue
is not in conformity with Rule 173 of the Rules of 1957. In
support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon
the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in the matter of Rajendra Manda Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.1367/2023 (decided on 01.08.2023).
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that vide the order impugned, the Board of
Revenue has exercised its independent power and in
terms of Rule 173 of the Rules of 1957, the Board of
Revenue has the authority to transfer the Revenue Officer
anywhere within the State. He submitted that the ratio of
Rajendra Manda’s case (supra) would not apply to the
present matter as therein the issue was whether the State
Government can direct the Collector/Divisional
Commissioner/Board of Revenue to transfer.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
5. It is clear on record that vide the order impugned, the
petitioner has been sought to be transferred at Sanchore
without specifying any specific place of posting. The same
is clearly a vague and incomplete order as held by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajendra Manda’s case
(supra) and hence, the same cannot be upheld. Further,
as observed in Rajendra Manda’s case (supra), the order
of transfer of Revenue Inspector, passed by the Board of
Revenue, is clearly in exercise of the powers as prescribed
under Rule 173 of the Rules of 1957 and the said powers
have to be exercised in exclusion of one another. In
Rajendra Manda’s case (supra), it has been clearly held
that interpreting the provision in the manner that the
Board of Revenue has the power to transfer anywhere
within the State including the power to transfer within the(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 02:00:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 08:06:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32570] (3 of 3) [CW-14598/2026]district and the division, would lead to overlapping powers
between the authorities mentioned therein. Therefore,
such nature of uncertainty and confusion cannot be
countenanced.
6. In view of the ratio as laid down in the above judgment,
the order impugned transferring the petitioner within the
division having been passed by the Board of Revenue,
cannot be upheld and the same is hence, quashed and set
aside qua the present petitioner. The writ petition is
hence, allowed.
7. Stay petition and the pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.”
3. Learned GC, opposes the submissions advanced by the
petitioner’s counsel, however, is not in a position to refute the fact
that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is
squarely covered by the order dated 01.03.2024 passed in the
case of Chhagan Lal Patel (supra).
4. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is allowed in
the same terms as in the case of Chhagan Lal Patel (supra).
5. In the ratio, as laid down in the above judgment, the order
impugned dated 10.07.2026 (Annex.8) transferring the petitioner
within the division having been passed by the Board of Revenue,
cannot be upheld and the same is hence, quashed and set aside
qua the present petitioner. The writ petition is hence, allowed.
6. Stay petition and the pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
13/Dharmendra Jala (PL)/357
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 02:00:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 08:06:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
