Disposed¶27

Kailash Son of Lhodya v. Suresh S/O Lattu

Rajasthan HC13 Aug 2025CW/10321/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition disposed; challenge to Permanent Lok Adalat order dated 19.02.2025; encroachment removal from public road; allegation of no notice/hearing and improper service; note-sheet dated 27.11.2024 recording denial of service; direction to Secretary, Urban Development Trust, Sawai Madhopur to remove encroachments and consider claim within seven days; Dhamun Khurd, Sawai Madhopur; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10321/2025; Justice Sameer Jain; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; respondent No.3 directed to remove all encroachments from the public road without hindrance and to consider the petitioner's claim within seven days if filed, in accordance with law; pending applications, if any, stand disposed. ¶27

Kailash Son of Lhodya Vs Suresh S/O Lattu — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:31540]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10321/2025

¶4

Kailash Son Of Lhodya, R/o Dhamun Khurd, Tehsil And District Sawai Madhopur.

¶5

Dhanpal Son Of Lhodya, R/o Dhamun Khurd, Tehsil And District Sawai Madhopur.

¶6

Ramdhan Son Of Lhodya, R/o Dhamun Khurd, Tehsil And District Sawai Madhopur.

¶7

Jamnalal Son Of Lhodya, R/o Dhamun Khurd, Tehsil And District Sawai Madhopur.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

Suresh S/o Lattu, R/o Dhamun Khurd, Tehsil And District Sawai Madhopur.

¶11

State Government Through Tehsildar, Land Holder, Tehsil Sawai Madhopur.

¶12

Secretary, Urban Development Trust, Sawai Madhopur.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Teeka Ram Meena For Respondent(s) :

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶16

Judgment

¶17

13/08/2025

¶18

Present petition is filed being aggrieved of the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat (Annexure-2).

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners in the present petition were not notified/ heard to putforth their claim. Further, it is submitted that no appropriate procedure was followed by the authorities to carry out the service.

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel and upon perusal of the impugned order dated 19.02.2025, this Court has noted that in

[2025:RJ-JP:31540]

[CW-10321/2025]

(2 of 2)

presence of the non-applicant Nos.5 and 6 and the applicant, considering that the dispute pertains to encroachments over the road and after hearing both the parties the said order was passed.

¶25

Further, it is analyzed that on 27.11.2024, a note-sheet was drawn, wherein, it is reflected that the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 have denied the service.

¶26

Taking note of the aforementioned, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the present petition, howsoever, this Court in the interest of justice, directs the respondent No.3 to remove all the encroachments from the public road without any hindrance, and shall consider the claim of the petitioner, within a period of seven days, if the same is filed, in accordance with law.

¶27

In light of the above, the present petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed.

¶28

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶29

DEEPAK/60

Kailash Son of Lhodya v. Suresh S/O Lattu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Son of Lhodya v. Suresh S/O Lattu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bimlesh Sharma S/O Lala Ram Vs Komal Singh Dhakad S/O Radheshyam

Balkishan Gupta S/O Shri Manohar Lal Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwar Singh S/O Shri Gopal Singh Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan

Neeraj Harwani S/O (Late) Shri Bhushan Harwani Vs State of Rajasthan

Vyasthapak Fair Price Shop Keeper Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Vs State of Rajasthan

Rohitash Kumar Yadav Son of Kishori Lal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan