Liyakat Agwan S/O Sh. Fakhru Bhai Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:36262]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13026/2025

¶4

Liyakat Agwan S/o Sh. Fakhru Bhai, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Bye Pass Road, Transport Nagar, Jhalrapatan, Jhalawar.

¶5

Abdul Majeed Khan S/o Sh. Abdul Hamid Khan, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Harish Chand Colony, Jhalrapatan, Jhalawar.

¶6

Noshad Khan S/o Late Sh. Usman Bhai, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Near Gayatri Mandir, Transport Nagar, Jhalrapatan, Jhalawar.

¶7

Mohammad Siddik S/o Gani Khan, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Mahatma Gandhi Colony, Jhalrapatan, Jhalawar.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director Cum Secretary, Directorate Of Local Bodies, G-3, Rajmahal Residency Area, Near Civil Line Phatak, 22 Godown, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302006.

¶11

Nagar Palika, Jhalrapatan, Through Its Chairman, District Jhalawar-326023.

¶12

The Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar-326023.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Parihar Mr. Ashutosh Chauhan

¶15

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶16

Order

¶17

09/09/2025

¶18

The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned notices dated 15.05.2025 and 20.08.2025 issued by Municipal Board, Jhalarpatan by which the petitioners have been directed to remove their encroachment from the subject land.

[2025:RJ-JP:36262]

[CW-13026/2025]

(2 of 4)

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier also notice dated 15.05.2025 was assailed by the petitioners before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8661/2025 and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 28.05.2025 with the following observations and directions:-

¶23

“1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned notice dated 15.05.2025 issued by the Municipal Board, Jhalrapatan by which the petitioners have been directed to remove the encroachment from the land in question.

¶24

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid notice has been issued to the petitioners by giving reference of the order dated 29.01.2024 passed by this Court while deciding the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12615/2010. Counsel submits that the issue involved in the said petition is confined to allotment and regularization of the plot claimed by one Mahaveer Jain and his legal representatives. Counsel submits that no such direction was issued by this Court for taking action against anyone and the directions were confined for taking a decision with regard to allotment and regularization in favour of the aforesaid persons in accordance with law. Counsel submits that misinterpreting the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the impugned notice has been issued to the petitioners, hence interference of this Court is warranted.

¶25

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the order dated 29.1.2024 passed by this Court and notice dated 15.05.2025 issued by the Municipal Board, Jhalrapatan.

¶26

This fact is not in dispute that the issued involved in aforesaid petition submitted by the Mahaveer Jain is confined to allotment and regularization of a patta. It appears that the notice in question has been issued to the petitioners by the Municipal Board, Jhalrapatan, by treating them as encroachers, on the land in question.

¶27

The aforesaid notice has been issued to the petitioners without affording them any opportunity of hearing and without taking into count their stand for the right title over the said property in question

¶28

Considering the factual aspect of the matter, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant

(3 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:36262]

[CW-13026/2025]

writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to file objections/reply to the aforesaid notice before the Municipal Board, Jhalrapatan within a period of one week from today on the basis of the documents upon which they are placing reliance. The Municipal Board, Jhalrapatan is directed to decide the said reply/objections raised by the petitioners within a period of two weeks thereafter by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

¶33

For a period of four weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners.

¶34

Needless to observe that in case, any adverse order is passed against the petitioners, they would be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum of law for redressal of their grievance.

¶35

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 28.05.2025 passed by this Court, the petitioners have submitted one more reply in the office of the respondents, but without considering the earlier and subsequent reply, again a similar notice has been issued to the petitioners on 20.08.2025 without deciding the reply/objections submitted by the petitioners to the earlier notice dated 15.05.2025. Learned counsel submits that such action of the respondents tantamount to non-compliance of the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by this Court, hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶37

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶38

Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioners and looking to the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by this Court, it is clear that before issuing the notice dated 20.08.2025, the reply/objection submitted by the petitioners to the notice dated 15.05.2025 has not been decided by the respondents on its merits by passing a reasoned and

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:36262]

[CW-13026/2025]

speaking order and without doing so and without complying with the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by this Court, the notice in question has been issued.

¶43

Considering the above factual aspect of the matter, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the present writ petition by re-iterating the same directions to the respondents, which were issued by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8661/2025 vide order dated 28.05.2025. The respondents are again directed to decide the objections/reply submitted by the petitioners within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

¶44

For a period of three weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners.

¶45

Needless to observe that in case, any adverse order is passed against the petitioners, they would be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum of law for redressal of their grievance.

¶46

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶47

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶48

Karan/28

Liyakat Agwan S/O Sh. Fakhru Bhai v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Liyakat Agwan S/O Sh. Fakhru Bhai v. State of Rajasthan

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

Ghanshyam Khatik S/O Nangagram Khatik Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxmi Narayan S/O Shri Bheru Lal Vs Board of Revenue

Sanjay Choudhary S/O Sh. Richhpal Singh Choudhary Vs the Union of India

Sumitra Saini W/O Shri Ashok Kumar Saini Vs Suman Sharma W/O Shri Raju @ Rajesh Sharma

Shwetabh Singhal, S/O Sh. Rakesh Singhal Vs M/S J.K and Sons

Kaluram S/O Shri Mangilal Vs Rajasthan Sarkar