Dismissed

Mahesh Kumar S/O Lt. Sh. Kailash v. Principal Secretary

Rajasthan HC12 Jul 2025CW/17440/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an encroachment notice, the Court held that respondents must follow principles of natural justice. It granted liberty to petitioner to file representation and stayed coercive action for six weeks for consideration after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file representation; coercive action stayed for six weeks pending consideration after hearing.

Mahesh Kumar S/O Lt. Sh. Kailash Vs Principal Secretary — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:25820]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17440/2024

¶4

Mahesh Kumar S/o Lt. Sh. Kailash, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Shastri Nagar Extension Jaipur Road Malpura, District Tonk, Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Saini

¶12

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

12/07/2025

¶15

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.

¶16

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:25820]

[CW-17440/2024]

(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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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:25820]

[CW-17440/2024]

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

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶32

Karan/4

Mahesh Kumar S/O Lt. Sh. Kailash v. Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Kumar S/O Lt. Sh. Kailash v. Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Son of Shri Nanu Vs Smt. Kamladevi W/O Shri Madansingh

Moolchand Vs B O R Ajmer and Ors.

District Collector Vs Shri Rajkumar S/O Shri Radhey Shyam

Narendra Singh Dhakad S/O Shyamlal Dhakad Vs the State of Rajasthan

Manoj Kumar S/O Lt. Sh. Kailash Vs Principal Secretary

Manju Devi W/O Shri Rajbahadur Vs State of Rajasthan