Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Smt. Murti D/O Late Shri Badliya Gurjar … vs The State Of Rajasthan … on 9 April, 2025
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Anand Sharma
[2025:RJ-JP:15981-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 303/2025
Smt. Murti D/o Late Shri Badliya Gurjar W/o Shri Phoolchand
Gurjar, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Jainpurbas, Tehsil Behror,
District Alwar (Rajasthan).
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Behror District Alwar
(Rajasthan).
3. The Tehsildar, Behror, District Alwar (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Ran Vijay Singh
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Order
09/04/2025
1. Heard on admission.
2. Mr. Anil Mehta, learned Senior Advocate contended that the
writ petition was filed by the appellant aggrieved by non-execution
of a decree passed in her favour after full-fledged trial by the
Revenue Court for handing over the possession of the disputed
lands. He argued that though in a long pending Revenue Execution
Case No.10/1999, an order was passed in appellant’s favour on
11.10.2002 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Behror, District Alwar, for
one reason or the other, possession has not been handed over and
(Downloaded on 15/04/2025 at 09:43:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:15981-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-303/2025]
the appellant is unable to reap the fruits of the order passed in her
favour long back.
3. It is further submitted that the status-quo order passed in
the civil suit on 07.09.2021 would not come in the way of
execution of decree passed in the revenue suit, as that judgment
and decree has not been stayed.
4. Having gone through the material on record and the order
passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that as
long as status-quo order dated 07.09.2021 passed in the civil suit
filed by Ramswaroop, is in force and operative, the prayers in the
writ petition for handing over the possession in furtherance of
order dated 11.10.2002 passed in Revenue Execution Case
No.10/1999, cannot be granted. The appellant admittedly, is party
to the proceedings in the civil suit, where status-quo order was
passed on 07.09.2021 and that is in respect of the lands in
dispute involved in the revenue suit. Irrespective of the merits of
order dated 07.09.2021 passed in the civil suit, the petition for
issuance of writ of mandamus for handing over the possession of
the lands, which is subject matter of dispute in the civil suit,
cannot be granted.
5. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that the Writ Court
has imposed cost of Rs.25,000/-, which was not warranted in the
facts and circumstances of the case, as the appellant was only
bonafide pursuing her remedy to seek relief.
6. The cost has been imposed by the Writ Court, taking into
consideration that even though there exists status-quo order
passed by Civil Court, direction has been sought in the writ
(Downloaded on 15/04/2025 at 09:43:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:15981-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-303/2025]
petition that too, without impleading those, in whose favour
mutation stands and who are in possession.
7. In view of above, we are not inclined to interfere with the
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Pending application, if
any, also stands dismissed.
(ANAND SHARMA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ
RAJAT/9
(Downloaded on 15/04/2025 at 09:43:43 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)