THANARAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2026-08-10. THANARAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:37965] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18426/2026 CNR: RJHC010767112026 | URN: CW / 31821U / 2026 Thanaram S/o Late Shri Ambaram, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Majdoor Para Jaisalmer Po Jaisalmer Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Govt. Of Raj. Secretariat Jaipur 2. Sub-Divisional Officer (Sdo), Fatehgarh Dist. Jaisalmer Raj. 3. Tehsildar, Tehsil Fatehgarh Dist. Jaisalmer Raj. 4. Patwari, Patwar Halka Kita Tehsil Fatehgarh Dist. Jaisalmer Raj. 5. Vishnaram S/o Late Shri Ambaram, R/o Majdoor Para Jaisalmer Po Jaisalmer Raj. 6. Hamiraram S/o Late Shri Ambaram, R/o Ward No. 18 Babrmagra Dist. Jaisalmer Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Khan HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI Order 10/08/2026 1. Counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, if he may be permitted to file a representation before the respondent No.
3-Tehsildar Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj. ) and the same may be decided in an expeditious manner. 2. In view of the prayer so made, the present writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent No. 3-Tehsildar Tehsil [2026:RJ-JP:37965] (2 of 2) [CW-18426/2026] Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj. ) for ventilating his grievances within a period of ‘two weeks’ from today. Such representation shall be decided by the respondent No. 3-Tehsildar Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj. ), within a period of ‘four weeks’ thereafter, by way of passing a speaking order, strictly in accordance with law. 3. Needless to say that the aforesaid direction to decide the representation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious redressal of petitioner’s grievance. The same may not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner.
The respondents would be free to examine the veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case, the averments made therein are found to be correct, appropriate orders would be passed in favour of the petitioner. 4. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly. (DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 19/Devesh Thanvi
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.