Gopal Sharma S/O Shri Ramavatar Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:50564]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19725/2025

¶4

Gopal Sharma S/o Shri Ramavatar Sharma, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Vrindavan, Barunda Kalan, Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶5

Omprakash S/o Shri Dilsukh Ram, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Barunda Kalan, Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶6

Maniram S/o Shri Malaram, Aged About 82 Years, R/o Barunda Kalan, Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶7

Maniram S/o Shri Devi Sahay, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Vrindavan, Barunda Kalan, Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶8

Babu Lal Sharma S/o Shri Devi Sahay, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Vrindavan, Barunda Kalan, Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶9

Mahesh S/o Shri Devi Sahay, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Vrindavan, Barunda Kalan, Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶10

Rishikesh S/o Ghasiram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Vrindavan, Barunda Kalan, Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶11

Sanwar Mal S/o Shri Devi Sahay, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Vrindavan, Barunda Kalan, Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶12

Surendra S/o Shri Thakurmal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Vrindavan, Barunda Kalan, Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶13

Mukesh S/o Shri Thakurmal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Vrindavan, Barunda Kalan, Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶14

Ghisaram S/o Shri Ramkumar, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Vrindavan, Barunda Kalan, Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶15

Pawan Kumar S/o Dhansi Ram Sharma, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Vrindavan, Barunda Kalan, Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶16

Satish S/o Dhansi Ram Sharma, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Vrindavan, Barunda Kalan, Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶17

Naresh S/o Dhansi Ram Sharma, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Vrindavan, Barunda Kalan, Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Petitioners

¶18

Versus

¶19

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. (Raj.)

¶20

The Deputy Secretary To Govt. Department Of Revenue (Group-6), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶21

The District Collector Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)

¶22

The Sub-Divisional Officer Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)

¶23

The Tehsildar Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) ----Respondents

¶24

[2025:RJ-JP:50564] For Petitioner(s)	(2 of 3) [CW-19725/2025] : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vidyadhar Ghathala, AGC

¶25

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

¶26

Order

¶27

15/12/2025

¶28

The petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking quashing and setting aside the Communication No.1344 dated 09.12.2025 as well as order dated 09.12.2025, whereby the learned District Collector, Jhunjhunu has sought police assistance as well as JCB Machines for removing the encroachments and for maintaining law & order arrangement.

¶29

It is submitted that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13744/2025, which came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025. The relevant portion of the aforesaid order dated 13.10.2025, is reproduced herein below:-

¶30

“6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with the direction that the petitioner shall mark their presence before the Tehsildar on 20.11.2025 at 11.00 a.m., who has issued notice under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. Tehsildar is directed to pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, after considering the facts. Till passing of the orders by the concerned Tehsildar, status quo, as on date, be maintained qua the petitioners.”

¶31

The sole ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that representation filed by the petitioners has not been decided till date and without deciding the said representation, the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 has been passed and the respondents are hell-bent to demolish their residential houses.

[2025:RJ-JP:50564]

[CW-19725/2025]

(3 of 3)

Mr. Vidhyadhar Ghathala, learned AGC, appearing on behalf of all the respondents, on instructions, submits that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025, the representation preferred by the petitioners has already been decided on 20.11.2025.

¶36

However, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the Tehsildar concerned has not been furnished / communicated to the petitioners depriving them from availing remedy against the said order.

¶37

In view of the above, learned AGC undertakes to supply the copy of the said order to the petitioners / their counsel within three days. 7. In view of the undertaking given by the learned AGC, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo of the residential houses, as it exists today, for a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶38

It goes without saying that the petitioners are at liberty to avail the remedy against the order dt.20.11.2025 in accordance with law.

¶39

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶40

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶41

(SANDEEP TANEJA),J

¶42

SAHIL SONI /9

Gopal Sharma S/O Shri Ramavatar Sharma v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Sharma S/O Shri Ramavatar Sharma v. the 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pinkcity Auto Chalak Union Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Kumar S/O Daleep Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Narendra Singh S/O Amar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dula Ram S/O Mohan Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Javed Khan S/O Asru Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohan Lal Bairwa S/O Shri Chhitar Mal Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan