Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Bhikki S/O Hukma vs Pooran Singh S/O Radha Vallabh … on 11 March, 2025
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2025:RJ-JP:11073]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15066/2024
1. Bhikki S/o Hukma, (Since Deceased)
1/1. Anar Dei W/o Bhikki,
1/2. Ramniwas S/o Bhikki
1/3. Raghuveer S/o Bhikki
1/4. Satyendra Kumar S/o Bhikki
1/5. Ramnaresh S/o Bhikki,
All are R/o Jahannagar, Tehsil Roopwas District Bharatpur.
1/6. Savitri D/o Bhikki (W/o Raju), R/o Kagrol Marg,
Kheragarh, Agra (U.p.).
----Petitioners/Plaintiffs/Applicants
Versus
1. Pooran Singh S/o Radha Vallabh, R/o Roopwas, Tehsil
Roopwas District Bharatpur.
...Defendant-Respondent
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Roopwas, District
Bharatpur.
...Defendant-Respondent
3. Charan Singh S/o Hukma, (Since Deceased)
3/1. Shrimati, W/o Charan Singh
3/2. Rajesh, S/o Charan Singh
3/3. Virendra S/o Charan Singh, Minor Through Mother
Guardian Shrimati W/o Charan Singh
4. Shiv Singh S/o Hukma, All R/o Jahannagar, Tehsil
Roopwas, District Bharatpur.
----Proforma Plaintiffs-Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15067/2024
1. Bhikki S/o Hukma, (Since Deceased)
1/1. Anar Dei W/o Bhikki,
1/2. Ramniwas S/o Bhikki
1/3. Raghuveer S/o Bhikki
1/4. Satyendra Kumar S/o Bhikki
1/5. Ramnaresh S/o Bhikki,
All are R/o Jahannagar, Tehsil Roopwas District Bharatpur.
1/6. Savitri D/o Bhikki (W/o Raju), R/o Kagrol Marg,
Kheragarh, Agra (U.p.).
----Petitioners/Plaintiffs/Applicants
Versus
1. Pooran Singh S/o Radha Vallabh, R/o Roopwas, Tehsil
Roopwas District Bharatpur.
...Defendant-Respondent
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 10:14:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:11073] (2 of 4) [CW-15066/2024]
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Roopwas, District
Bharatpur.
...Defendant-Respondent
3. Charan Singh S/o Hukma, (Since Deceased)
3/1. Shrimati, W/o Charan Singh
3/2. Rajesh, S/o Charan Singh
3/3. Virendra S/o Charan Singh, Minor Through Mother
Guardian Shrimati W/o Charan Singh
4. Shiv Singh S/o Hukma, All R/o Jahannagar, Tehsil
Roopwas, District Bharatpur.
5. Hukma S/o Talpee (since deceased)
5/1 Bhagwati S/o Hukma W/o Mansingh Kachvaya, R/o
Saidpura Tehsil Roopwas District Bharatpur
5/2 Anardei S/o Hukma W/o Roshanlal Darkee, Tehsil
Saidpur Tehsil Roopwas District Dholpur
5/3 Narayani D/o Hukma W/o Sheodan Singh R/o Lajja Ki
Ghanti Tehsil Saidpur District Dholpur
----Proforma Plaintiffs-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mehrish with
Mr. Rakesh Saini
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Gunjan Chawla for
Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC
Ms. Supriya Saxena with
Mr. Utkarsh Mittal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
11/03/2025
Since, these writ petitions arise out of the common orders
passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity,
'Board of Revenue') deciding two review/revision petitions, they
have been heard together and are being decided vide this
common order.
The relevant facts in brief are that Shri Bhikki, the
predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners (for brevity,
'petitioners') along with proforma respondents no.3 and 4, filed a
suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 10:14:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:11073] (3 of 4) [CW-15066/2024]
respondent no.1 and the proforma respondent no.2. Another suit
for permanent injunction qua the self same property was filed by
the respondent no.1 against the petitioners, the respondents no.3
and 4 and other co-defendants. The Court of Sub-Divisional
Officer, Roopwas (Bharatpur) (for brevity, 'trial Court'), vide its
order dated 12.01.2012, while dismissing the temporary injunction
application filed by the respondent no.1, allowed the temporary
injunction application filed by the petitioners and directed the
parties to maintain status quo. The respondent no.1 preferred two
appeals no.06/2012 and 07/2012 against the order dated
12.01.2012 which came to be allowed by the Revenue Appellate
Authority, Bharatpur (for brevity, 'RAA') vide order dated
07.05.2015 and the petitioners alongwith other co-defendants
were restrained not to interfere in the property purchased by the
respondent no.1 through registered sale deed. The revision
petitions preferred thereagainst by the petitioners as also the
review petitions have been dismissed by the Board of Revenue
vide order dated 13.06.2022 and the order dated 28.05.2024
respectively.
Assailing the orders, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that since, their suit for declaration and permanent
injunction is pending consideration and even the RAA has made an
observation that claim of the petitioners that their father had no
authority to sell the entire ancestral land in favour of the
respondent no.1 is subjudice, no temporary injunction could have
been granted against them. He, therefore, prays that the writ
petitions be allowed, the orders impugned passed by the Board of
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 10:14:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:11073] (4 of 4) [CW-15066/2024]
Revenue be quashed and set aside and the order dated
12.01.2012 passed by the trial Court be restored.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1
supported the orders impugned.
Heard. Considered.
Indisputably, the respondent no.1 has purchased the subject
property from its recorded khatedar-father of the petitioners,
through a registered sale deed. Since, the RAA as also the Board
of Revenue have concurrently recorded a factual finding that
under the registered sale deed, he has also obtained physical
possession of the subject property, in the considered opinion of
this Court, they did not err in issuing a temporary injunction in his
favour. This factual finding has not been demonstrated to be
suffering from any perversity or illegality by the learned counsel
for the petitioners. In view thereof, this Court finds no
justification, under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article
227 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with the well
reasoned concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts
based on cogent material on record and the sound legal principles.
Resultantly, these writ petitions are dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of
accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
DIKSHA /83-84
(Downloaded on 12/03/2025 at 10:14:22 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)