Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Smt. Shyama Devi vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:29690]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5314/2026
CNR: RJHC010225102026
URN: CW / 9563U / 2026
1. Smt. Shyama Devi W/o Late Shri Dhanraj Gehlot, Aged
About 65 Years, Resident Of Mataji Temple, Opposite
Street, Kheme Ka Kuan, Pal Road, Jodhpur
2. Ashok S/o Late Shri Dhanraj Gehlot, Aged About 37
Years, Resident Of Mataji Temple, Opposite Street, Kheme
Ka Kuan, Pal Road, Jodhpur
3. Kanta D/o Dhanraj Gehlot, Aged About 36 Years, Resident
Of Mataji Temple, Opposite Street, Kheme Ka Kuan, Pal
Road, Jodhpur
4. Smt. Heena D/o Dhanraj (Wife Of Shri Chhanwar Lal),
Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Suraj Bera, Sursagar,
Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan.
2. District Collector, Jodhpur.
3. Tehsildar Jodhpur, District Jodhpur.
4. Smt. Kamla W/o Late Shri Daulatram Gehlot, Resident Of
Mataji Temple, Opposite Street, Kheme Ka Kuan, Pal
Road, Jodhpur
5. Ajay Singh S/o Late Shri Daulatram Gehlot, Resident Of
Mataji Temple, Opposite Street, Kheme Ka Kuan, Pal
Road, Jodhpur
6. Smt. Sarita Sankhla W/o Nand Kishore, Daughter Of Late
Shri Daulatram Gehlot, Resident Of Sankhla Floor Mill,
Near Rto Office, Gulab Nagar, Jodhpur.
7. Kishan Lal Gehlot S/o Late Shri Ram Chander Gehlot,
Resident Of Near Street Temple Of Mataji, Kheme Ka
Kuan, Pal Road, Jodhpur.
8. Jai Singh Sankhla S/o Late Shri Shivki Sankhla, Resident
Of Panwadi Bera, Sursagar, Jodhpur.
9. Mohan Sankhla S/o Late Shri Shivji Sankhla, Resident Of
Panwadi Bera, Sursagar, Jodhpur.
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:40:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 06:24:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29690] (2 of 21) [CW-5314/2026]
10. Smt. Dhanu W/o Late Shri Padam Singh Gehlot, Resident
Of Phulbagh Mandore, Jodhpur.
11. Smt. Geeta W/o Shri Lakshman Singh Solanki, Resident
Of Roopawat Bera, Kali Berim Sursagar, Jodhpur.
12. Arishta Rajpurohit D/o Vinod Rajpurohit, R/o A-324,
Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.
13. Gaurik Industrial Developers Llp, 112, Abhaygarh
Scheme, Opposite Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Ratanada,
Jodhpur Through Its Director / Proprietor.
14. Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, Through Its
Commissioner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Counsel assisted
by Mr. Hemant Ballani, Mr. Jayant
Pitawat & Ms. Vasundhara Gopa
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
06/07/2026
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have
sought quashing of the order dated 17.08.2021 (Annx.18) passed
by the Hon’ble Minister of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur, to the extent it confers khatedari rights exclusively upon
respondents Ajay and Kamla in respect of the land comprised in
Khasra No. 860/751 situated at Village Jodhpur. The petitioners
have further prayed that, in view of the orders dated 28.05.1970
and 09.06.1970 (Annx.5) passed by the District Collector, Jodhpur,
the judgment and decree dated 29.05.1974 (Annx.7) passed by
the Munsif Court, Jodhpur, and the judgment dated 24.02.1974
(Annx.8) passed by the Additional District Judge, Jodhpur, they,
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:40:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 06:24:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29690] (3 of 21) [CW-5314/2026]
along with the other legal heirs of Late Shri Shivji, Harji and
Ramchander sons of Nathuji, be also declared khatedar tenants of
the aforesaid land and to enter the petitioners’ names in the
revenue records in accordance with their succession rights and
respective shares in the land. A prayer has also been made to
conduct an enquiry for determination of the legal heirs of Late Shri
Shivji, Harji and Ramchander sons of Nathuji. The petitioners have
also prayed that the transfer of the land effected by the
respondents be declared invalid to the extent it affects the
petitioners’ rights and shares, and that the corresponding revenue
entries in favour of the respondents be deleted. In the alternative,
the petitioners have prayed that Writ Petition No. 14857/2024,
titled Ajay Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, be dismissed and the
respondent authorities be directed to proceed with and decide the
review application preferred by the petitioners before the Hon’ble
Minister of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute
pertains to land bearing Khasra No. 860/751 (old Khasra
Nos.751/23 & 751/33), Village Jodhpur. The original land holder
was Nathuji before the Land Settlement in 1955. Nathuji was
having three sons, namely, Shivji, Harji and Ramchander. It is
submitted that Shivji and Harji sons of Nathuji were granted
khatedari rights by order dated 28.11.1956. Although, the District
Collector, Jodhpur cancelled the said khatedari by order dated
28.05.1970/09.06.1970, the said order was set aside by the
competent Civil Court on 29.05.1974, which judgment attained
finality upon dismissal of the State’s appeal on 24.02.1975. It is
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:40:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 06:24:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29690] (4 of 21) [CW-5314/2026]
further submitted that after the death of Shivji and Harji without
issue, the khatedari rights devolved upon their brother Ram
Chander and thereafter upon his legal heirs, including the
predecessors of the petitioners and the private respondents.
However, during the subsistence of the petitioners’ rights, the
District Collector allotted the land to the Municipal Corporation,
Jodhpur on 10.07.2015 for establishment of a fire station by
treating it as Government land. Subsequently, in revision and
review proceedings by respondent Nos. 4 & 5, the Hon’ble Minister
of Revenue, by order dated 17.08.2021, declared the Collector’s
order dated 28.05.1970/09.06.1970 ineffective and void ab initio
while cancelling the Order dated 10.07.2015 to the extent of
12.18 bigha land of Khasra No. 860/751 and directed restoration
of khatedari rights, but confined the benefit only to respondent
Nos.4 & 5, namely, Kamla and Ajay Singh, excluding the
petitioners despite their being co-heirs of the original khatedar.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners initially approached this Court
by way of filing Writ Petition No. 5934/2024 but withdrew that writ
petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedy, and thereafter
filed a review before the Hon’ble Minister of Revenue, in which an
interim status quo order dated 22.08.2024 was passed. The said
order has been stayed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.14857/2024 at the instance of the private respondent Nos. 4 &
5. The present writ petition has, therefore, been filed seeking
recognition of the petitioners’ equal khatedari rights in the land in
question and challenging the proceedings, whereby the benefit of
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:40:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 06:24:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29690] (5 of 21) [CW-5314/2026]
the order dated 17.08.2021 has been restricted only to some of
the legal heirs as also dismissal of Writ Petition No. 14857/2024.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the
order of the District Collector dated 28.05.1970/09.06.1970,
whereby the khatedari rights of Shivji and Harji were cancelled,
stood set aside by the competent Civil Court and the said decree
attained finality in appeal, the khatedari rights of the original
khatedars necessarily stood restored.
4. It is contended that the Hon’ble Minister of Revenue, while
passing the order dated 17.08.2021, rightly declared the
Collector’s order to be ineffective but committed a patent illegality
in directing mutation of khatedari rights only in favour of
respondent Nos. 4 and 5, namely, Kamla and Ajay Singh, instead
of restoring the original khatedari in the names of Shivji and Harji
and thereafter permitting succession to devolve upon all their
lawful heirs in accordance with law. It is submitted that both the
petitioners and the private respondents trace their rights through
the common ancestor Ram Chander and, therefore, all the legal
heirs are equally entitled to succeed to the restored khatedari
rights.
5. It is further submitted that the respondents cannot claim an
exclusive right over the land merely because they initiated the
revision proceedings. According to learned counsel, succession
opens by operation of law and the benefit of restoration of
khatedari cannot be confined to only some of the legal heirs to the
exclusion of the others. The impugned direction contained in the
order dated 17.08.2021, conferring khatedari rights exclusively
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:40:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 06:24:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29690] (6 of 21) [CW-5314/2026]
upon Kamla and Ajay Singh, is therefore arbitrary, discriminatory
and contrary to the settled principles governing succession.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent Nos. 4
& 5, during the pendency of the dispute, have alienated portions
of the land in favour of respondent Nos. 12 & 13 despite the
controversy regarding title being sub-judice. Such transfers, it is
argued, are subject to the outcome of the present proceedings
and cannot confer any better title than what the transferors
themselves possessed.
7. It is further contended that the petitioners had earlier
approached this Court but withdrew the writ petition with liberty
to avail the appropriate remedy and thereafter pursued the
statutory review before the Hon’ble Minister of Revenue. The
interim order directing maintenance of status quo passed in the
review proceedings was subsequently stayed by this Court in the
writ petition preferred by the respondent Nos. 4 & 5. The present
petition has, therefore, been instituted to safeguard the
petitioners’ independent and hereditary rights in the subject land.
8. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, learned
counsel further contends that the order dated 17.08.2021 itself
suffers from a jurisdictional error. It is submitted that while
rejecting the revision petition on 30.07.2019, the Hon’ble Minister
had categorically held that the dispute relating to declaration of
khatedari rights was a judicial matter beyond the scope of
revisional jurisdiction under Section 83 of the Rajasthan Land
Revenue Act. Having recorded such a finding, it was not open to
the Hon’ble Minister, in exercise of review jurisdiction under
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:40:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 06:24:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29690] (7 of 21) [CW-5314/2026]
Section 85-A of the Act, to virtually reverse the earlier order and
grant substantive declaratory relief regarding khatedari rights.
According to learned counsel, the powers of revision and review
under the Act are confined to non-judicial matters and cannot be
exercised for adjudication of rights which are required to be
determined by a competent revenue court. Therefore, the
direction contained in the order dated 17.08.2021 regarding
conferment of khatedari rights is without jurisdiction.
9. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the petitioners have
satisfactorily explained the delay in approaching this Court by
pointing out their financial hardship, the earlier proceedings
pursued by them bona fide, and the fact that they approached this
Court immediately after the review proceedings were stalled. It is,
therefore, prayed that the present writ petition be entertained and
appropriate interim protection be granted.
10. Per contra, Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Senior Counsel assisted
by Mr. Hemant Ballani, oppose the writ petition and submit that
the same is not maintainable either on facts or in law. It is
contended that the petitioners have suppressed material facts and
have approached this Court without making a complete disclosure
of the multiple proceedings initiated by them concerning the same
subject matter. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the
petitioners have instituted a suit under Sections 88 and 188 of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act questioning the alleged adoption of Daulat
Ram by Shiv Ji and seeking declaration of khatedari rights,
wherein their application for temporary injunction under Section
212 has already been rejected by the competent Revenue Court
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:40:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 06:24:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29690] (8 of 21) [CW-5314/2026]
on 01.08.2024. The said order has been challenged before the
Revenue Appellate Authority and thereafter before the Board of
Revenue, where the proceedings are still pending and no interim
protection has been granted. It is further submitted that the
petitioners have also invoked the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional
Officer under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act for
correction of revenue entries. Their application for ad-interim relief
was rejected on 01.08.2024, the revision preferred before the
Board of Revenue was dismissed on the ground of maintainability
on 11.06.2025, and though this Court subsequently directed the
Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the application for temporary
injunction, those proceedings are also pending. Besides the above,
the petitioners have filed a review petition before the Revenue
Minister against the order dated 17.08.2021, in which an order of
status quo dated 22.08.2024 was passed but the same has been
stayed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14857/2024. It
is, therefore, submitted that the present writ petition suffers from
suppression of material facts and amounts to abuse of the process
of law.
11. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the principal
controversy relates to the succession to the property of Shiv Ji and
the validity of the adoption of Daulat Ram, which involves
seriously disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication on the
basis of oral and documentary evidence and, therefore, cannot
appropriately be examined in exercise of the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction. It is submitted that Shiv Ji and his brother Har Ji had
no natural issue, whereas, their brother Ramchander had three
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:40:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 06:24:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29690] (9 of 21) [CW-5314/2026]
sons, namely Daulat Ram, Kishan Lal and Dhanraj, and one
daughter. According to the respondents, Daulat Ram was given in
adoption to Shiv Ji and Kishan Lal to Har Ji much prior to the year
1980. Upon the death of Shiv Ji in the year 1981, the revenue
records were accordingly mutated in favour of Daulat Ram as the
adopted son of Shiv Ji, as reflected in the relevant Khasra
Parivartan records. Learned Senior Counsel submits that this
status has consistently been recognised in public documents
including the electoral rolls, ration card and even the death
certificate of Daulat Ram issued in the year 2010, wherein he is
described as the son of Shiv Ji. It is, therefore, contended that the
respondents have lawfully succeeded to the estate of Daulat Ram
and that the petitioners cannot seek to reopen these factual issues
in writ proceedings.
12. It is further contended that the rights flowing from the order
dated 17.08.2021 have already attained finality. Learned Senior
Counsel submits that the legal representatives of Daulat Ram had
earlier succeeded in review proceedings under Section 85A before
the Revenue Minister, resulting in the order dated 17.08.2021
whereby the land was recorded in the names of Ajay Singh and
Kamla, the legal heirs of Daulat Ram. The said order was
challenged before this Court and thereafter before the Division
Bench, but the challenge failed and the rights of Ajay Singh and
Kamla stood affirmed. It is also submitted that the present
petitioners had themselves earlier assailed the order dated
17.08.2021 by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5934/2024, which
came to be dismissed as withdrawn after arguments with liberty to
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:40:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 06:24:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29690] (10 of 21) [CW-5314/2026]
avail appropriate remedy. Having already pursued statutory
remedies as well as civil proceedings in relation to the same
dispute, the petitioners cannot maintain the present writ petition
seeking substantially identical reliefs, which is barred by the
principle of estopple and constitutes an abuse of the process of
the Court.
13. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the petitioners
cannot indirectly seek dismissal or nullification of the proceedings
in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14857/2024 through the present writ
petition. It is pointed out that the petitioners are already
impleaded as respondents in the said writ petition and have
entered appearance by filing their vakalatnama on 15.11.2024,
yet they have neither filed any reply contesting the writ petition
nor sought vacation or modification of the interim order dated
12.09.2024, whereby the operation of the Revenue Minister’s
order dated 22.08.2024 has been stayed. Instead, they have
chosen to institute the present writ petition seeking substantially
overlapping reliefs. It is, therefore, contended that parallel
proceedings on the same cause of action are impermissible and
that the petitioners ought to pursue the remedies already invoked
before the competent forums. On these grounds, learned Senior
Counsel prays that the present writ petition be dismissed as not
maintainable.
14. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel relies
upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Radha
Krishna vs. State of Rajasthan; 1976 RLW 671 and the
decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Rahul Modi
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:40:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 06:24:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29690] (11 of 21) [CW-5314/2026]
and others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
(Writ Petition No.43781 of 2025) decided on 02.12.2025.
15. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the material available on
record.
16. At this stage, after arguing the matter at considerable length
and upon this Court expressing its prima facie reservations
regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition in view of
the objections raised by the respondents, learned counsel for the
petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition
with liberty to pursue the remedy available to the petitioners in
accordance with law, including S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.14857/2024, wherein they are already arrayed as respondents.
17. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private
respondents opposes the prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition.
18. Having regard to the facts of the present case, this Court is
not inclined to permit the petitioners to withdraw the present writ
petition at this stage.
19. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking
following relief :-
“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this writ petition may
kindly be allowed:
a) That by an appropriate writ, order and direction be
issued and order dated 17.08.2021 (Annexure-18) passed
by Hon’ble Minister of Revenue, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur may kindly be quashed and set aside
qua / extend to given the khatedari only to the
respondents Ajay & Kamla the upon the land of khasra
no. 723/2 rakba 11 bigha 10 biswa and 751/33 rakba 12
bigha 18 biswa of village Jodhpur (new number 860/751)
and further directed that in terms of the order dated
28.05.1970 & 09.06.1970 (Annexure-5) passed by District(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:40:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 06:24:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29690] (12 of 21) [CW-5314/2026]Collector Jodhpur, judgment and decree dated
29.05.1974 (Annexure-7) passed by Munsif Court,
Jodhpur and judgment dated 24.02.1974 (Annexure-8)
passed by Additional District Judge, Jodhpur, the
petitioners as well as other legal heirs of the Late Shri
Shivji, Harji & Ramchander s/o Nathuji may also be
treated as khatedar tenant of the land and the respondent
authorities may be directed to enter the name of the
petitioners in revenue record as their succession right /
share in the land.
b) That by an appropriate writ, order and direction be
issued and the order dated 17.08.2021 (Annexure-18)
may kindly be quashed qua given the khatedari right only
to the respondents Kamla & Ajay Singh and respondents
may kindly be directed to conduct the enquiry in the
matter with regard to legal heirs of Late Shri Shivji, Harji
& Ramchander s/o Nathuji and enter the name in a
revenue record in terms of the order dated 29.05.1974
(Annexure-7) passed by Munsif Court, Jodhpur and
judgment dated 24.02.1974 (Annexure-8) passed by
Additional District Judge, Jodhpur.
c) That by an appropriate writ, order and direction be
issued and the transfer of land by the respondents may be
declared invalid qua the right and share of the petitioners
and entry of their names may be directed to deleted from
the revenue records.
d) That by an appropriate writ, order and direction be
issued and in the alternative, the writ petition no.
14857/2024 title as Ajay Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
may kindly be rejected and the respondents may be
directed to proceed with the review application filed by
the petitioners before Hon’ble Minister of Revenue,
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
e) That the any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems
fit, by which the Petitioners may get full justice may also
be allowed.”
A perusal of the record reveals that earlier the petitioners
had preferred the Writ Petition No. 5934/2024, in which they
sought following reliefs :-
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of the
Petitioners that :-
i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, an order dated
17.08.2021 (Annex.-7) may kindly be quashed and set
aside;
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:40:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 06:24:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29690] (13 of 21) [CW-5314/2026]
ii) by an appropriate writ, order or directions, the review
petition of the Respondents may kindly be rejected on face
of it.
iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Petitioners
may kindly be declared the khatedar of the land in dispute
and their equal share should be protected.
iv) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this
Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour
of the Petitioners.
v) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the
Petitioners.”
From the above, it reveals that the petitioners had earlier
assailed the very same order dated 17.08.2021 by filing S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.5934/2024, wherein they had also sought
quashing of the said order and declaration of their khatedari
rights. The said writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn
after arguments with liberty to avail appropriate remedies in
accordance with law. The maintainability of each of the reliefs
claimed in the present writ petition is, therefore, examined
independently.
20. In so far as prayer clause (a) is concerned, the petitioners
seek quashing of the order dated 17.08.2021 passed by the
Hon’ble Minister of Revenue to the extent it recognizes khatedari
rights exclusively in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5, namely,
Ajay Singh and Kamla, and further pray that they, along with the
other legal heirs of Late Shivji, Harji and Ramchander, be declared
khatedar tenants and their names be entered in the revenue
records.
This Court finds that the aforesaid relief is not maintainable
in the present writ proceedings for more than one reason. In the
first place, the petitioners had earlier challenged the very same
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:40:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 06:24:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29690] (14 of 21) [CW-5314/2026]
order dated 17.08.2021 by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.5934/2024, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn after
arguments, with liberty to avail appropriate remedies in
accordance with law. Availing such liberty, the petitioners have
instituted a revenue suit under Sections 88 and 188 of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, proceedings under Section 136 of the
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and a review petition before the
Hon’ble Revenue Minister, all of which are admittedly pending.
The record further reveals that after availing different
remedies, the petitioners failed to secure any interim protection
before the statutory forums. Their application for temporary
injunction in the proceedings under Sections 88 and 188 of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act was rejected by the competent Revenue
Court, while their application for ad-interim relief under Section
136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act also did not yield any
protection. Although, the Hon’ble Revenue Minister, in the review
proceedings, passed an interim order dated 22.08.2024 directing
maintenance of status quo, the operation of the said order was
stayed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14857/2024.
Significantly, despite being arrayed as respondents in the said writ
petition and having entered appearance therein, the petitioners
have neither filed any reply nor sought vacation or modification of
the interim order. Instead, they have chosen to institute the
present writ petition seeking substantially the same reliefs. Such
conduct clearly demonstrates an attempt to pursue parallel
remedies after having failed to obtain interim relief before the
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:40:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 06:24:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29690] (15 of 21) [CW-5314/2026]
competent forums and amounts to an abuse of the process of the
Court.
Apart from the above, the relief claimed necessarily requires
adjudication of rival claims of succession and inheritance flowing
from Late Shivji, Harji and Ramchander, including the validity and
legal effect of the alleged adoption of Daulat Ram by Shivji. These
issues involve seriously disputed questions of fact requiring
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, which cannot
appropriately be determined in exercise of the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such
questions fall squarely within the domain of the competent
revenue court and other statutory forums already seized of the
dispute. Accordingly, prayer clause (a) deserves to be rejected.
21. By prayer clause (b), the petitioners seek a direction for
conducting an enquiry regarding the legal heirs of Late Shivji,
Harji and Ramchander and consequential correction of the revenue
entries. The relief sought is again founded upon disputed
questions relating to succession and entitlement, which are
already the subject matter of pending proceedings before the
competent revenue authorities. This Court, while exercising writ
jurisdiction, cannot undertake an enquiry for determination of
legal heirs or direct adjudication of succession rights when the
statutory mechanism is already available and has, in fact, been
invoked by the petitioners themselves. Therefore, prayer clause
(b) is also rejected.
22. By prayer clause (c), the petitioners seek a declaration that
the transfers effected by the private respondents are invalid to the
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:40:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 06:24:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29690] (16 of 21) [CW-5314/2026]
extent of the petitioners’ alleged rights and further seek deletion
of the corresponding revenue entries. The grant of such relief
necessarily presupposes a prior adjudication of title, succession
and extent of proprietary rights of the parties. Unless the
petitioners first establish their own legal entitlement before the
competent forum, no declaration invalidating transfers made by
the respondents can be granted in the present writ proceedings.
The validity of such alienation is dependent upon adjudication of
civil and revenue rights, which cannot be undertaken under Article
226 of the Constitution. Prayer clause (c) is, therefore, rejected.
23. By prayer clause (d), the petitioners have, in the alternative,
prayed that S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14857/2024 titled Ajay
Singh vs. State of Rajasthan be dismissed and the respondent
authorities be directed to proceed with the review application
preferred by them before the Hon’ble Minister of Revenue. The
said relief is wholly misconceived and legally untenable.
Admittedly, the petitioners are already arrayed as respondents in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14857/2024 and have entered
appearance therein by filing their vakalatnama. If they are
aggrieved by any interim order passed in those proceedings or
seek dismissal of the writ petition, the appropriate course
available to them is to file their reply, raise all permissible
objections and seek appropriate orders before the Bench hearing
the said matter. A writ petition under Article 226 cannot be
maintained for seeking dismissal of another pending writ petition
before a Coordinate Bench. Consequently, prayer clause (d) also
deserves rejection.
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:40:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 06:24:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29690] (17 of 21) [CW-5314/2026]
24. The explanation furnished by the petitioners for the delay in
challenging the order dated 17.08.2021 is not satisfactory. The
petitioners were not inactive during the intervening period but
were continuously pursuing various proceedings arising out of the
same dispute. The present writ petition has been instituted only
after availing the available remedies before the statutory forums,
which reflects a conscious litigation strategy rather than any
sufficient cause for the delay.
25. The plea of financial hardship and engagement of counsel on
a pro bono basis also does not justify the belated invocation of the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction, particularly when the petitioners
were throughout prosecuting multiple proceedings through legal
representation. Likewise, the fact that the earlier writ petition was
instituted through a different counsel does not entitle the
petitioners to maintain a fresh writ petition challenging the same
order or avoid the consequences of the earlier proceedings.
26. Apart from the above, this Court finds that the petitioners
have simultaneously invoked multiple remedies in respect of the
same subject matter by instituting proceedings under Sections 88
and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, proceedings under Section
136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, review proceedings
before the Hon’ble Revenue Minister and by participating as
respondents in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14857/2024, while at the
same time filing the present writ petition seeking substantially
overlapping reliefs. The petitioners have also failed to make a
complete and candid disclosure regarding the pendency and status
of all such proceedings. The institution of parallel proceedings
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:40:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 06:24:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29690] (18 of 21) [CW-5314/2026]
seeking substantially identical reliefs amounts to abuse of the
process of law and furnishes an additional ground for declining
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
27. Rule 382 of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan, 1952 embodies the principle that successive writ
petitions on the same cause of action are impermissible. The Rule
reads as under:-
“382. Where an application has been rejected, it shall not be
competent for the applicant to make a second application on the
same facts.”
The scope and effect of the aforesaid Rule came up for
consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Radha
Krishna‘s case (supra) wherein, while interpreting Rule 382, the
Division Bench held that :
“12. In our judgment, the present writ petition was clearly barred by
Rule 382 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, which runs as
follows:–
“382. where an application has been rejected, it shall not
be competent for the applicant to make a second
application on the same facts.”
In Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2), the earlier writ petition had
been dismissed in default. The question before the Division Bench of
Dave and Lodha, JJ. was whether a second petition on the same
facts lies. The Division Bench held that the second petition was
barred. Lodha, J. in delivering the judgment, observed:
“…… If the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner to
the effect that the petitioner has a right to invoke
extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of
the Constitution successively, unless the matter has been
disposed of on merits, is driven to its logical conclusion, it
would result in reduction and absurdum. The result of
acceptance of such a proposition would mean that even
though a writ application may have remained pending for a
few years and then it has been dismissed in default or may
have been disposed of for any other reason except on
merits, the petitioner would have a right to move such an(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:40:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 06:24:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29690] (19 of 21) [CW-5314/2026]application on the same facts again and again till it is
disposed of on merits.
Looked at from another point of view, such a procedure
would result in disregarding and circumventing the earlier
orders of this Court. In these circumstances, we are of the
opinion that the principle contained in Order 9, Rule 9,
C.P.C. can be suitably applied to writ proceedings. As has
already been stated above, the earlier writ application in
this case based on the same facts was dismissed in default
in the presence of the opposite party and the application for
the restoration was dismissed on merits. Thus, applying the
principle contained in Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. the present
writ application is not maintainable.”
In D.B. Special Appeal No. 1 of 1971 D. N. Bandopadhyay v.
Union of India dated 9-3-1971 Beri, C. J. and Joshi, J. observed that
successive petitions do not lie on the principle that a party cannot be
vexed twice. This is a salutary principle and there is no reason for us
to depart from that principle in the present case. We must,
accordingly, hold that the petition was barred under Rule 382 of the
Rajasthan High Court Rules.
13. Even otherwise, the learned single Judge was, in our view,
right in the circumstances of the present case in rejecting the writ
petition. It has been made clear more than once that the power to
give relief Article 226 is a discretionary power. He was right in not
exercising the inherent and extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of
the appellants. They must fail on account of inordinate delay and
laches on their part. Their earlier petition was dismissed as
withdrawn on 16-3-1972. They sat quiet for a period of nearly 1 1/2
years. There was unreasonable delay on their part in moving the
Court. The delay remains unexplained. Merely because the Supreme
Court held in Munshi Singh v. Union of India (AIR 1973 SC 1150)
that the public purpose stated in notifications, viz. for planned
development of Jaipur City was vague, that would not furnish a
ground to them to file a fresh petition. The petition must, therefore,
fail on the ground of laches: I. C. N. Sahakari Samiti v. State of
Rajasthan, AIR 1974 SC 2085.”
28. In the case of Sarguja Transport Service vs. S.T.A.T.;
(1987) 1 SCC 5, the Apex Court has held that when a writ
petition is withdrawn without seeking liberty to file a fresh
petition, a second writ petition on the same cause of action is
barred. The relevant para is quoted hereinunder :-
“9. The point for consideration is whether a petitioner after
withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High Court under(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:40:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 06:24:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29690] (20 of 21) [CW-5314/2026]Article 226 of the Constitution of India without the permission to
institute a fresh petition can file a fresh writ petition in the High
Court under that article. On this point the decision in Daryao case
[AIR 1961 SC 1457 : (1962) 1 SCR 574] is of no assistance. But we
are of the view that the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of
the Code should be extended in the interests of administration of
justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground
of res judicata but on the ground of public policy as explained above.
It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting
tactics. In any event there is no justifiable reason in such a case to
permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution once again. While
the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in a High Court without
permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies
like a suit or a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata, the remedy
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be deemed to
have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of
action relied on in the writ petition when he withdraws it without
such permission. In the instant case the High Court was right in
holding that a fresh writ petition was not maintainable before it in
respect of the same subject matter since the earlier writ petition had
been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition. We,
however, make it clear that whatever we have stated in this order
may not be considered as being applicable to a writ petition
involving the personal liberty of an individual in which the petitioner
prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or seeks
to enforce the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution since such a case stands on a different footing
altogether. We, however leave this question open.”
29. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, this Court finds that the petitioners had earlier challenged
the very same order dated 17.08.2021 by filing S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.5934/2024, wherein substantially identical reliefs
regarding quashing of the order and recognition of their alleged
khatedari rights were claimed. Thereafter, instead of pursuing the
remedies already availed by them, the petitioners have instituted
the present writ petition while simultaneously prosecuting
proceedings before the competent revenue authorities and
participating in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14857/2024. As noticed
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:40:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 06:24:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29690] (21 of 21) [CW-5314/2026]
hereinabove, the reliefs claimed in the present petition either
involve adjudication of seriously disputed questions of succession
and title, which are beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction, or seek
interference in proceedings already pending before competent
statutory forums or a Coordinate Bench of this Court. In these
circumstances, the present writ petition is clearly not maintainable
and constitutes a misuse of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court.
30. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that no ground is made out for exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
31. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as not
maintainable, being barred by principles governing successive writ
petitions and also as constituting an abuse of the process of Court.
32. Having regard to the manner in which the petitioners have
pursued parallel remedies and invoked the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court despite efficacious statutory remedies
being available and pending, this Court deems it appropriate to
impose costs quantified at Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
only). The said amount shall be deposited by the petitioners with
the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within a period of
four weeks from today. In case of default, the amount shall be
recoverable in accordance with law.
33. The stay petition and all pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
25/Inder/355
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:40:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 06:24:00 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
