Rajasthan High Court
SAW/1493/2025 of MOHANRAM Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 3 August 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1493/2025 CNR: RJHC011008462025 | URN: SAW / 2777U / 2025 1. Mohanram S/o Late Shri Khetaram, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of Krshnpura (Balwa) Tehsil And District Nagaur. 2. Jetharam S/o Late Shri Khetaram, Aged About 61 Years,
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1493/2025
CNR: RJHC011008462025 | URN: SAW / 2777U / 2025
1.
Mohanram S/o Late Shri Khetaram, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of Krshnpura (Balwa) Tehsil And District Nagaur.
2.
Jetharam S/o Late Shri Khetaram, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Krshnpura (Balwa) Tehsil And District Nagaur.
3.
Mangilal S/o Late Shri Khetaram, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Krshnpura (Balwa) Tehsil And District Nagaur.
4.
Tulcharam Mehra S/o Late Shri Khetaram, Aged About 55
Years, Resident Of Krshnpura (Balwa) Tehsil And District Nagaur.
5.
Mena Devi W/o Sukharam, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of Singad, Nagaur.
6.
Choti Devi, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Goganada, Singad, Nagaur.
7.
Pramila Mehra W/o Ramdev, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Krshnpura (Balwa) Tehsil And District Nagaur.
8.
Gajendra Kumar Mehra S/o Late Sh. Ramdev, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Krshnpura (Balwa) Tehsil And District Nagaur.
9.
Mahendra Mehra S/o Late Sh. Ramdev, Aged About 32
Years, Resident Of Krshnpura (Balwa) Tehsil And District Nagaur.
10.
Pushpa Mehra W/o Prem Prakash Barward, Aged About 36
Years, Resident Of 114 Ward No. 6, Banjara, Basti, Makrana, Nagaur.
11.
Kavita W/o Adarsh Raj, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of 267, Pashim Vihar, Sirsi Marg, Jaipur.
12.
Sarita Mehra D/o Late Ramdev, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Krshnpura (Balwa) Tehsil And District Nagaur.
All Above Parties Through Power Of Attorney Holder, Ram Sahay Jagetiya S/o Shri Laxmi Lal Jagetiya, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Flat No. S- 2, Aaishwarya Height, Plot No. 240, Padmawati-B Colony, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur -
302019.
----Appellants
Versus
(2 of 3)
[SAW-1493/2025]
1.
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Industries, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.
The Joint Secretary, Department Of Industries (Group-1), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.
The Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Nagaur.
4.
The Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Limited, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur
5.
Tehsildar (Land Records), Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s)
:
None present.
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG.
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
03/08/2026 This case has been adjourned on last eight occasions on the request of appellants or due to non-appearance of the counsel for the appellants. Today also, no-one has put in appearance on behalf of the appellants.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is to the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has admitted the writ petition and issued notice to respondent No.2 only, returnable within a period of six weeks and directed to list the case after six weeks. The learned Single Judge has passed the following interim order:
(3 of 3) [SAW-1493/2025] “In the meanwhile, the proceedings related to the land acquisition shall remain subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition.”
3. The writ petition is pending before the learned Single Judge for adjudication. We do not find any reason to interfere with the proceedings pending before the learned Single Judge.
4. The appeal is found to be wholly without any merit and the same is dismissed. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ 19/Anil Asopa