Dismissed

Rajpal S/O Prithvi Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Jul 2025CW/9773/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging encroachment notice deemed barred by failure to exhaust statutory remedy under Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to approach the appropriate appellate authority within 15 days; coercive action stayed for 15 days pending appeal.

What the court decided

Rajpal S/O Prithvi Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:24135]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9773/2025

¶4

Rajpal S/o Prithvi Singh, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Village Bas Tokha, Dhindhwa Aguna, Distt. Jhunjhunu.

¶5

Surendra Singh S/o Prithvi Singh, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Village Bas Tokha, Dhindhwa Aguna, Distt. Jhunjhunu.

¶6

Mahendra S/o Shishram, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Village Bas Tokha, Dhindhwa Aguna, Distt. Jhunjhunu.

¶7

Pratap Singh S/o Chandgiram, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Village Bas Tokha, Dhindhwa Aguna, Distt. Jhunjhunu.

¶8

Satyavir Singh S/o Hanumana Ram, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of Village Bas Tokha, Dhindhwa Aguna, Distt. Jhunjhunu.

¶9

Ram Singh S/o Hanumana Ram, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Village Bas Tokha, Dhindhwa Aguna, Distt. Jhunjhunu.

¶10

Umed Singh S/o Chandgiram, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Village Bas Tokha, Dhindhwa Aguna, Distt. Jhunjhunu.

¶11

Balbir S/o Daniram, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Village Bas Tokha, Dhindhwa Aguna, Distt. Jhunjhunu.

¶12

Man Singh S/o Daniram, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of Village Bas Tokha, Dhindhwa Aguna, Distt. Jhunjhunu.

¶13

Rohitash Kumar S/o Daniram, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village Bas Tokha, Dhindhwa Aguna, Distt. Jhunjhunu.

¶14

Hemaram S/o Mandroop, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Village Bas Tokha, Dhindhwa Aguna, Distt. Jhunjhunu.

¶15

Raju S/o Mahendra, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village Bas Tokha, Dhindhwa Aguna, Distt. Jhunjhunu.

¶16

----Petitioners

¶17

Versus

¶18

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶19

The District Collector, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)

¶20

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu. 4. The Tehsildar, Pilani, Distt. Jhunjhunu.

¶21

The Land Records Holder, Peepli, Distt. Jhunjhunu.

¶22

----Respondents

¶23

For Petitioner(s)

¶24

: Mr. Tapeshwar Pal Singh Parmar

[2025:RJ-JP:24135]

[CW-9773/2025]

(2 of 3)

Mr. Ankit Kumar Ms. Chhaya Sharma Mr. Sahil Khan

¶29

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶30

Order

¶31

01/07/2025

¶32

By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the order dated 11.06.2025 passed by the Tehsildar, Pilani and a notice dated 25.06.2025 issued by the Land Record Inspector, Peepli under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short “the Act of 1956”) treating the petitioners as encroachers on the Gair Mumkin Johad land.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in continuous possession of the land in question since time immemorial and without availing the due process of law, the authorities have taken a decision to eject them from the subject land, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶34

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

¶35

Perusal of the order dated 11.06.2025 passed by the Tehsildar, Pilani and notice dated 25.06.2025 issued by the Land Record Inspector, Peepli indicate that the subject land is a Gair Mumkin Johad land.

¶36

“Whether the petitioners can claim their possession over the said land or not” and “whether they are encroachers on the said land or not” are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be

[2025:RJ-JP:24135]

[CW-9773/2025]

(3 of 3)

adjudicated by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction, contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶41

The petitioners have alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, but without availing the alternative statutory remedy contained under the provisions of the aforesaid Act, the petitioners have straightaway approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition bypassing the jurisdiction of the statutory Appellate Authority.

¶42

On this count alone, the writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority by way of filing appropriate appeal against the impugned order/notice issued by the respondents. 8. In case, the petitioners file an appeal within a period of 15 days from today, it is expected from the appropriate authority to decide the said appeal, strictly in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties. 9. Till then it is ordered that for a period of 15 days, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. 10. The petitioners would be at liberty to move stay application along-with the appeal and the Appellate Authority would be at liberty to decide the stay application strictly in accordance with law.

¶43

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶44

Karan/150

Rajpal S/O Prithvi Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Rajpal S/O Prithvi Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tijaria Polypipes Limited Vs Union of India

Reetu Tanwar Wife of Late Shri Shakti Singh Vs H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd.

M/S. Volta Switchgear India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. Riico)

Bikhu Singh Son of Late Shri Bhairu Singh Vs Municipal Board Pushkar

Mohammed Imran S/O Shri Naimuddeen Vs State of Rajasthan

Jairam Verma Son of Shri Shivram Verma Vs State of Rajasthan