Disposed

Manish Pathak Son of Shri Raj Narayan Pathak v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Jul 2025CW/9801/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land purchasers facing a public notice for encroachment removal sought writ protection while their regularization application remained pending. The court declined to decide title but directed the authority to decide the regularization application within four weeks and restrained coercive action for that period.

What did the court decide?

Direction to decide regularization application expeditiously, preferably within four weeks; no coercive action against petitioners for four weeks.

Manish Pathak Son of Shri Raj Narayan Pathak… — Municipal and Town Planning | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:24613]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9801/2025

¶4

Manish Pathak Son Of Shri Raj Narayan Pathak, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 71, Surjeet Nagar, Nursery Road, Dholpur (Raj.)

¶5

Rukmani Devi Wife Of Shri Anant Kumar, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 18, Surjeet Nagar, Nursery Road, Dholpur (Raj.)

¶6

Mahesh Puri Son Of Shri Ramji Puri, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 19, Surjeet Nagar, Nursery Road, Dholpur (Raj.)

¶7

Amit Kumar Jaga Son Of Shri Dilip Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, Plot No. 82, Surjeet Nagar, Nursery Road, Dholpur (Raj.)

¶8

Gaurav Sharma Son Of Shri Premi Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 40-A, 41, 42-B, Surjeet Nagar, Nursery Road, Dholpur (Raj.)

¶9

Saurabh Sharma Son Of Shri Premi Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 40-A, 41, 42-B, Surjeet Nagar, Nursery Road, Dholpur (Raj.)

¶10

Nidhi Jaiswal Wife Of Shri Shyamu Bhaiya, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 77-A, 78-A, 83, 84, Surjeet Nagar, Nursery Road, Dholpur (Raj.)

¶11

Ganeeta Devi Wife Of Shri Omkar Baghel, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 39-A And 40, Surjeet Nagar, Nursery Road, Dholpur (Raj.)

¶12

Debi Charan Son Of Shri Babu Lal, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 73, Surjeet Nagar, Nursery Road, Dholpur (Raj.)

¶13

Anita Sharma Wife Of Kishan Singh Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 26-A And 27-A, Surjeet Nagar, Nursery Road, Dholpur (Raj.)

¶14

Madhu Saxena Wife Of Banwari Lal, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 79-A, Surjeet Nagar, Nursery Road, Dholpur (Raj.)

¶15

Jagdish Prasad Sharma Son Of Shri Shankar Lal, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 20 And 21-A, Surjeet Nagar, Nursery Road, Dholpur (Raj.)

¶16

(2 of 3) [CW-9801/2025]

[2025:RJ-JP:24613]

----Petitioners

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The Government, Local Self Government Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶21

Commissioner, Municipal Council, Dholpur (Raj.). 3. Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidhut Vitran Nigam Ltd., A-1, Dholpur (Raj.)

¶22

----Respondents

¶23

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mahendra Verma for Mr. Dinesh
	Yadav
For Respondent(s)	:

¶24

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶25

Order

¶26

04/07/2025

¶27

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have purchased the subject land through the erstwhile owner by way of a registered sale deed and thereafter, an application was submitted by them before the Municipal Council for regularization. Counsel submits that the regularization process is still subjudice before the authorities but, in the meantime, a general public notice has been issued to remove the encroachment. Counsel submits that in the garb of the aforesaid public notice, the respondents are bent upon to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land over which they are having a valid title. Counsel submits that the matter of regularization is still pending and the same has not been decided as yet against them, hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

[2025:RJ-JP:24613]

[CW-9801/2025]

(3 of 3)

This Court is not going into the controversy involved in this petition as to whether the petitioners have raised any unauthorized constructions over the property in question or not, but looking to the fact that they are claiming their title over the land in question on the basis of certain documents and their application seeking regularization is still subjudice before the Competent Court, it is the bounden duty of the authority concerned to decide the said application expeditiously before taking any action against the petitioner.

¶32

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondents to first decide the application submitted by the petitioners strictly in accordance with law expeditiously, as early as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from today.

¶33

For a period of four weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. 5. 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.

¶34

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶35

Ashu/10

Manish Pathak Son of Shri Raj Narayan Pathak v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Pathak Son of Shri Raj Narayan Pathak v. State of Rajasthan

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

M/S Khandelwal Traders Vs Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (Riico)

M/S H.G. Infra Engineering Limited, Vs Chief Regional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited

Dadhich Finserv Private Limited Vs Sukhvinder Kaur W/O Trilok Singh

M/S Shyam Minerals Vs State of Rajasthan

Badan Singh and Ors. Vs the District Collector and Ors.

Baba Laxmandas Chela Baba Mohandas Vs Babulal S/O Shri Narayanlal Saini