Manoj Kumar S/O Lt. Sh. Kailash Vs Principal Secretary — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Manoj Kumar S/O Lt. Sh. Kailash Vs Principal Secretary — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation with supporting documents within 15 days; respondents to decide it strictly in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing within four weeks thereafter; interim protection - no coercive action against the petitioner for six weeks; stay application and pending applications likewise disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether, before proceeding to take action against the petitioner pursuant to the notice dated 01.03.2024 alleging encroachment of the subject land, the respondents were required to follow the principles of natural justice by affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and considering his reply. +1 more

Court's answer

In the considered opinion of the Court, before proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of the notice dated 01.03.2024, the respondents are expected to follow the principles of natural justice by affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and taking into account the reply submitted by him.

Ratio / Principle

The Court expressly declined to enter into or adjudicate the controversy whether the petitioner has encroached on the subject land or not, relying on the fact that the Temporary Injunction application of complainant-Prem Prakash had been rejected by the Additional District Judge, Malpura, and that the notice dated 01.03.2024 was issued without affording any opportunity of hearing.

Key takeaways

The Court expressly recorded that it has not expressed any opinion over the merits of the case.ratio¶29
The writ petition stands disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents by way of filing a representation along-with the documents upon which he is placing reliance.ratio¶22
If such a representation is submitted by the petitioner within a period of 15 days, the respondents are expected to decide it strictly in accordance with law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur), Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand - S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17439/2024, disposed 12/07/2025. Petitioner Manoj Kumar was aggrieved by a notice dated 01.03.2024 of Municipal Council, Malpura (District Tonk) framing a _prima facie_ opinion that he had encroached on subject land, stated to have been issued at the instance of Prem Prakash without enquiry or notice. Noting that Prem Prakash's temporary injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC in a suit against the petitioner had been rejected by the Additional District Judge, Malpura on 02.05.2019, and that the notice was issued without hearing the petitioner, the Court held that before proceeding further the respondents must follow the principles of natural justice - afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and take his reply into account. The petition was disposed of granting liberty to file a representation with reliance documents within 15 days, to be decided strictly in accordance with law after due hearing within four weeks thereafter; no coercive action was to be taken for six weeks; the Court expressly recorded that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the alleged encroachment.

[2025:RJ-JP:25796]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17439/2024

Manoj Kumar S/o Lt. Sh. Kailash, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Shastri Nagar Extension Jaipur Road Malpura, District Tonk, Raj.

----Petitioner

Versus

Principal Secretary, Department Of Urban Development And Housing, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

Executive Officer, Municipality, Malpura, District, Tonk, Raj.

Kanhaiya Lal, Mla, Toda- Malpura, Cabinet Minister Phed Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Raj.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Saini

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

12/07/2025

Aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 01.03.2024 issued by Municipal Council, Malpura District Tonk, the instant writ petition has been preferred before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by issuing aforesaid notice, at the instance of one Prem Prakash, without conducting any enquiry and without issuing notice to the petitioner, prima facie opinion has been framed that the petitioner has encroached over the subject land. Learned counsel submits that reference to some orders passed in the case of Prem Prakash Versus Bhanwar Lal Vijay has been given in the impugned notice.

[2025:RJ-JP:25796]

[CW-17439/2024]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel submits that infact the said Prem Prakash has filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner with regard to the similar controversy before the Court of Additional District Judge, Malpura District Tonk wherein the said application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was submitted, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 02.05.2019. Learned counsel submits that this fact was concealed by the said person before the council and impugned order/notice has been issued to the petitioner.

This Court is not going to enter into controversy whether the petitioner has encroached on the subject land or not, but looking to the fact that Temporary Injunction application submitted by the complainant-Prem Prakash has been rejected by the Additional District Judge, Malpura and looking to the fact that without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner straightaway the notice dated 01.03.2024 has been issued by the respondents for taking action against him, in the considered opinion of this Court, before proceeding against the respondents, the respondents are expected to follow the principles of natural justice, i.e., afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and take into account the reply submitted by him.

Hence, this writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents by way of filing a representation along-with the documents upon which he is placing reliance.

In case, such a representation is submitted by the petitioner within a period of 15 days from today, it is expected from the respondents to decide the same strictly in accordance with law,

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:25796]

[CW-17439/2024]

after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter.

Till then for a period of six weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

It is needless to observe that the respondents would be at liberty to decide the said representation strictly in accordance with law, as this Court has not expressed any opinion over the merits of the case.

Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

Karan/3