Shushila Devi W/O Babulal Achara Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 988/2026

¶4

Sunil Jangid S/o. Heeralal, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Village Shekhpur Aheer, Gram Panchayat Ishroda, Tehsil Tijara, District Kherthal-Tijara.

¶5

Amar Singh S/o. Hari Singh, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Village Shekhpur Aheer, Gram Panchayat Ishroda, Tehsil Tijara, District Kherthal-Tijara.

¶6

Ghanshyam S/o. Gulab, Resident Of Village Shekhpur Aheer, Gram Panchayat Ishroda, Tehsil Tijara, District Kherthal-Tijara.

¶7

Isarail S/o. Kareem Khan, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Village Shekhpur Aheer, Gram Panchayat Ishroda, Tehsil Tijara, District Kherthal-Tijara-301411

¶8

Rujdar S/o. Shri Chhota, Aged About 71 Years, Resident Of 38, Village Shekhpur Aheer, Gram Panchayat Ishroda, Tehsil Tijara, District Kherthal-Tijara301411

¶9

Hanif S/o. Haroon, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of 36, Village Shekhpur Aheer, Gram Panchayat Ishroda, Tehsil Tijara, District Kherthal-Tijara-301411

¶10

Abhay Singh S/o. Lala Ram, Presnetly Upsarpanch Gram Panchayat Ishroda, Panchayat Samiti Tijara, District Khertal-Tijara-301411

¶11

----Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj Department), Government Of Rajasthan, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur-302026

¶14

Deputy Commissioner And Deputy Secretary (First), Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj Department), Government Of Rajasthan, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur-302026

¶15

District Collector, District Kherthal-Tijara (Raj.) 301404

¶16

Sub-Divisional Officer, Tijara District Kherthal-Tijara.

¶17

----Respondents

(2 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Connected With

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 399/2026

¶23

Balu S/o Chhitar, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Khadipur, Bundi, Khadipur Rajasthan- 323022.

¶24

Sohan Gurjar S/o Ruganath Ji, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Khadipur, Khadipur, Bundi, Rajasthan- 323022.

¶25

Banshi S/o Shriram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Khadipur, Bundi, Khadipur, Rajasthan- 323022.

¶26

Prabhu S/o Harla, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Khadipur, Bundi, Khadipur, Rajasthan-323022.

¶27

Ramnivas S/o Ranglal, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Khadipur, Bundi, Khadipur, Rajasthan-323022.

¶28

Dev Lal Gurjar S/o Modu Lal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Khadipur, Bundi, Khadipur, Rajasthan323022.

¶29

----Petitioners

¶30

Versus

¶31

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary And Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶32

Local Self Department, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Line Crossing, Jaipur - 302016 Through The Principal Secretary.

¶33

Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶34

Director Cum Special Secretary, Local Self Department, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Line Crossing, Jaipur - 302016.

¶35

District Collector, District Bundi, Rajasthan.

¶36

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bundi, Rajasthan.

¶37

----Respondents

¶38

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18406/2025

¶39

Gangdev Gurjar S/o Shri Devkaran Gurjar, Aged About 81 Years, R/o Village Arnia, Post Shri Rampura @ Nayagaon, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk Rajasthan.

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

(3 of 68)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶46

District Collector, Tonk Rajasthan.

¶47

Chief Executive Officer Zila Parishad, Tonk

¶48

Sub Divisional Magistrate, Niwai, District Tonk.

¶49

----Respondents

¶50

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18846/2025

¶51

Niroti Lal S/o Chhote Lal, Aged About 73 Years, R/o Village Dumriya, Bharatpur, Rajasthan - 321405

¶52

----Petitioner

¶53

Versus

¶54

State Of Rajasthan, Through Department Of Panchayati Raj, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶55

The District Collector, Office Of District Collector, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

¶56

----Respondents

¶57

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19336/2025

¶58

Ridhmal Singh S/o Chimna Ram, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Swami Ki Dhani, Tan Chachiwad Bada, Tehsil Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar.

¶59

----Petitioner

¶60

Versus

¶61

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶62

Deputy Commissioner And Deputy Secretary, Administration (I), Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶63

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sikar, Rajasthan 4. Additional District Election Officer (Additional District Collector), Sikar

----Respondents

(4 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19482/2025

¶69

Munna Lal S/o Shri Babu Lal, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Chittora, Tehsil Saipau, District Dholpur, Rajasthan

¶70

----Petitioner

¶71

Versus

¶72

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶73

District Collector, Dholpur Rajasthan

¶74

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dholpur Rajasthan

¶75

----Respondents

¶76

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20524/2025

¶77

Jhamman Singh Son Of Late Shri Ghisi Ram, Aged About 78 Years, Resident Of Village Churari, Tehsil Suroth, District Karauli (Raj.)

¶78

Yadram Son Of Late Shri Fituriya, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Village Churari, Tehsil Suroth, District Karauli (Raj.)

¶79

Ramveer Singh Son Of Late Shri Bhim Singh, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Village Churari, Tehsil Suroth, District Karauli (Raj.)

¶80

Ashok Singh Son Of Late Shri Ramesh, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village Churari, Tehsil Suroth, District Karauli (Raj.)

¶81

Banwari Son Of Late Shri Amar Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Churari, Tehsil Suroth, District Karauli (Raj.)

¶82

----Petitioners

¶83

Versus

¶84

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Dy. Secretary Administration (First), Village Development And Panchayatiraj Department (Panchayatiraj), Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶85

District Collector, Karauli, District Karauli (Raj.)

¶86

Sub Divisional Officer, Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj.)

¶87

Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Hindaun City,

(5 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

District Karauli (Raj.)

¶92

----Respondents

¶93

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20656/2025

¶94

Jangsher Kha S/o Shri Jiwan Kha, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Pathano Ka Mohalla Azamnagar, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶95

----Petitioner

¶96

Versus

¶97

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶98

District Collector, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶99

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents

¶100

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 320/2026

¶101

Chandan Singh S/o Sh. Dhani Ram, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Village Mangrain Khurd, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

¶102

Kuwar Singh S/o Sh. Devi Singh, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of Village Katariyapura, Mangren Khurd, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

¶103

----Petitioners

¶104

Versus

¶105

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶106

Secretary, Pancayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶107

Director And Special Secretary, Local Self Government, 22 Godam, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶108

District Collector, District Bharatpur, (Rajasthan). 5. Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Bayana, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

¶109

----Respondents

¶110

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 352/2026

(6 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Rameshwar Meena, Son Of Shri Raghanath Meena, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of Village Surani, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶115

Surendra Singh Shekhawat, Son Of Shri Arjun Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Village Surani, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶116

Sanjay Pareek, Son Of Shri Sita Ram Pareek, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Village Surani, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan

¶117

Hoshiyar Singh, Son Of Shri Jhabhar Singh, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village Surani, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶118

----Petitioners

¶119

Versus

¶120

State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶121

The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶122

District Collector, Sikar, Rajasthan. 4. Sub-Division Officer, Srimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶123

Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Ajeetgarh, District Sikar

¶124

----Respondents

¶125

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 357/2026

¶126

Ranveer Singh Son Of Chiman Singh, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of Village Badhsalempur, District Karauli.

¶127

Kishorilal Son Of Mannulal, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Village Tamolipura, District Karauli.

¶128

----Petitioners

¶129

Versus

¶130

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat Jaipur

¶131

District Collector, Karauli.

(7 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Karauli.

¶136

----Respondents

¶137

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 433/2026

¶138

Dr. Kajod Mal Bhawaria, Son Of Shri Hanuman Sahay, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of Village Gomawali, Post Sihodi, Via Thoi, Tehsil Shrimadhopur District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶139

Hardev Singh Bhawaria, Son Of Shri Manna Ram, Aged About 60 Years, Village Gomawali, Post Sihodi, Via Thoi, Tehsil Shrimadhopur District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶140

Birbal, Son Of Shri Mahadev, Aged About 58 Years, Village Gomawali, Post Sihodi, Via Thoi, Tehsil Shrimadhopur District Sikar, Rajasthan

¶141

Ratan Lal, Son Of Shri Laxman, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Village Gomawali, Post Sihodi, Via Thoi, Tehsil Shrimadhopur District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶142

----Petitioners

¶143

Versus

¶144

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶145

The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶146

District Collector, Sikar, Rajasthan. 4. Sub-Division Officer, Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶147

Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Shri Madhopur, District Sikar

¶148

----Respondents

¶149

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 437/2026

¶150

1. Hemraj Singh S/o Shri Ram Prasad Jat, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village Samaspur, Tehsil And District Dausa.

¶151

Kailashi Jatav S/o Shri Sitaram, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Village Samaspur, Tehsil And District Dausa.

¶152

Samay Singh S/o Khilona, Aged About 66 Years, Resident

(8 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Of Village Samaspur, Tehsil And District Dausa.

¶157

Mahesh Kumar Jat S/o Shri Balmat, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Village Samaspur, Tehsil And District Dausa.

¶158

----Petitioners

¶159

Versus

¶160

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And And Panchayat Raj, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶161

The Secretary And Commissioner, Department Of Rural Development And And Panchayat Raj, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶162

The District Collector, Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶163

----Respondents

¶164

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 447/2026

¶165

Maharaj Singh S/o Sh. Hakam Singh, R/o Village Majajpur, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶166

Harkesh Meena S/o Sh. Hannu Ram Meena, R/o Village Majajpur, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶167

Ajit Kumar S/o Sh. Yadram Saini, R/o Village Majajpur, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶168

Heera Singh S/o Sh. Sultan, R/o Village Majajpur, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶169

Rajesh Kumar Meena S/o Sh. Bharat Lal, R/o Village Majajpur, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶170

Babu Lal S/o Sh. Hukum Singh, R/o Village Majajpur, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶171

----Petitioners

¶172

Versus

¶173

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayat Raj, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶174

District Collector, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶175

Sub Divisional Officer, Bhusawar District Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Respondents

¶176

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 586/2026

¶177

Meghram Gurjar S/o Shri Kundan Gurjar, Aged About 56

(9 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Years, R/o Village Adihudpura, Post Rondkalan, Panchayat Samiti Karauli, Tehsil Karauli, District Karauli

¶182

Samay Singh S/o Shri Ramswaroop, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Adihudpura, Post Rondkalan, Panchayat Samiti Karauli, Tehsil Karauli, District Karauli

¶183

Rajveer Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Prem Singh, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Village Adihudpura, Post Rondkalan, Panchayat Samiti Karauli, Tehsil Karauli, District Karauli

¶184

Jagram S/o Raghuveer, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Village Adihudpura, Post Rondkalan, Panchayat Samiti Karauli, Tehsil Karauli, District Karauli

¶185

----Petitioners

¶186

Versus

¶187

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶188

District Collector, Karauli Rajasthan

¶189

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Karauli Rajasthan

¶190

----Respondents

¶191

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 662/2026

¶192

Bacchu Singh, Aged About 68 Years, S/o Badan Singh

¶193

Gokul Ram, Aged About 70 Years, S/o Tejaram

¶194

Sumer Singh, Aged About 53 Years, S/o Shri Ramswaroop

¶195

Balveer Gurjar, Aged About 57 Years, S/o Prasadilal

¶196

Kirodi, Aged About 68 Years, S/o Hukmaram Ji

¶197

Motiram S/o Mohar Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Ondgurjar, Tehsil Mahewa, District Dausa Rajasthan

¶198

----Petitioners

¶199

Versus

¶200

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶201

District Collector, Dausa Rajasthan

(10 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dausa Rajasthan

¶206

----Respondents

¶207

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 813/2026

¶208

Gumansingh, Aged About 46 Years, S/o Mangilalji

¶209

Sayed Khan, Aged About 47 Years, S/o Wahid Khan

¶210

Parwat Singh, Aged About 75 Years, S/o Ramsingh 4. Lakhansingh, Aged About 26 Years, S/o Banney Singh

¶211

Pratap Meghwal S/o Baluji, Aged About 61 Years, All Residents Of Village Khejdiya, Gram Panchayat, Daata, Tehsil Pidawa, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

¶212

Nahar Singh S/o Mangilal Ji, Aged About 58 Years, Earlier Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat Daata, Tehsil Pidawa District Jhalawar (Raj.)

¶213

----Petitioners

¶214

Versus

¶215

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj Department), Government Of Rajasthan, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur- 302026.

¶216

Deputy Commissioner And Deputy Secretary (First), Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj Department), Government Of Rajasthan, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur- 302026.

¶217

District Collector, Jhalawar (Raj.)- 326001. 4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub- Division, Pidawa, District Jhalawar- 326034.

¶218

----Respondents

¶219

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 819/2026

¶220

Indersingh S/o. Karansingh, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Village Aminpur/aminpura, Gram Panchayat Govindpura, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

¶221

Hindu Singh S/o. Shri Nagji, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of Village Aminpur/aminpura, Gram Panchayat Govindpura, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

¶222

Prithvisingh S/o. Shri Ratanlal Ji, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village Aminpur/aminpura, Gram Panchayat Govindpura, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

(11 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Kansingh S/o. Jorawarsingh, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Village Aminpur/aminpura, Gram Panchayat Govindpura, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

¶227

Sodansingh S/o. Bhanwarsingh, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Village Aminpur/aminpura, Gram Panchayat Govindpura, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

¶228

Onkarsingh S/o. Amarsingh, Aged About 58 Years, Earlier Sarpanch Of Gram Panchayat Govindpura, Tehsil Pidawa, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

¶229

----Petitioners

¶230

Versus

¶231

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj Department), Government Of Rajasthan, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur- 302026

¶232

Deputy Commissioner And Deputy Secretary (First), Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj Department), Government Of Rajasthan, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur- 302026.

¶233

District Collector, Jhalawar (Raj.)- 326001.

¶234

Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub- Division, Pidawa, District Jhalawar- 326034.

¶235

----Respondents

¶236

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 847/2026

¶237

Chandra Shekhar Tiwari S/o Shri Brij Lal, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Village Sendhli, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

¶238

Pappu Ram S/o Late Shri Laxman, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Village Sendhli, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

¶239

Bhagwan Singh Saini S/o Shri Giriraj, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Village Sendhli, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

¶240

Prashant Kumar Beniwal S/o Shri Om Prakash Beniwal, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Village Sendhli, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

¶241

Chimoli Saini S/o Shri Ram Singh, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Village Sendhli, Tehsil Bhusawar, District

(12 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

¶246

Pankaj Tiwari S/o Shri Surendra Tiwari, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Village Sendhli, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

¶247

Man Singh Saini S/o Shri Balveer Singh Saini, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Village Sendhli, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

¶248

----Petitioners

¶249

Versus

¶250

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur.

¶251

The Collector, Bharatpur, Collectorate, Bharatpur.

¶252

The Sub Divisional Officer, Bhusawar, District Bharatpur.

¶253

----Respondents

¶254

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 895/2026

¶255

Rameshwar Prasad Saini S/o Shri Mishri Lal Saini, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Lakhni Wala Dhani, Piplai, District Sawaimadhopur.

¶256

----Petitioner

¶257

Versus

¶258

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶259

District Collector, Sawaimadhopur Rajasthan.

¶260

Chief Executive Officer Zila Parishad, Sawaimadhopur.

¶261

----Respondents

¶262

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 972/2026

¶263

Peetam Chand Sharma Son Of Shri Churaman Lal, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of Village Beri, Police Station Halena, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶264

Lalaram Son Of Shri Harbhajan Meena, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Village Ramnagar, Police Station Helena, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶265

----Petitioners

¶266

Versus

¶267

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Dy. Secretary

(13 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Administration (First), Village Development And Panchayatiraj Department (Panchayatiraj), Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶272

District Collector, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Raj.) 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj.) 4. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶273

----Respondents

¶274

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 991/2026

¶275

Mansingh S/o Shri Vedariya, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Surothi, Bijoli, Dholpur Rajasthan

¶276

----Petitioner

¶277

Versus

¶278

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶279

District Collector, Dholpur Rajasthan

¶280

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dholpur.

¶281

----Respondents

¶282

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1009/2026

¶283

Bhairu Singh S/o Ranmal Singh, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Near Gadh, Village Shankar Pura, Post Chakwada, Tehsil Phagi, Distt. Jaipur.

¶284

----Petitioner

¶285

Versus

¶286

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶287

District Collector, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶288

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶289

----Respondents

¶290

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1015/2026

¶291

Mahesh Chand S/o Shri Suresh Chand, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Jatav Basti, Dhandawali, Tehsil Hindaun

(14 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

District Karauli

Brahmanand Sharma S/o Sua Lal Sharma, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Surajmal Patti, Hukmi Kheda, Tehsil Suroth District Karauli

¶297

Dinesh Chand S/o Shri Ramesh Chand, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Khijuri Gram Panchayat Khedi, Tehsil Suroth, District Karauli

¶298

Bhagwan Singh S/o Shri Ghamandi Ram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Somali, Gram Panchayat Somla Ratra, Tehsil Suroth District Karauli

¶299

Keshav Kumar Sahariya S/o Shri Gopal Sharma, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Dagur Patti, Gram Panchayat Jatwada, Tehsil Suroth, District Karauli (Raj.)

¶300

Guman Singh Jatav S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ghursi Ka Pura, Tehsil Suroth District Karauli

¶301

Rajendra Meena S/o Late Shri Shrimohar Meena, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Subedar Ka Pura, Bhukrawali, Tehsil Suroth District Karauli

¶302

Balbir Singh S/o Late Shri Phuliram, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Righwas, Tehsil Suroth, District Karauli

¶303

Man Singh S/o Late Shri Bhagwat Jatav, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Bye-Jatt, Tehsil Suroth District Karauli

¶304

Kamal Singh Saini S/o Shri Babulal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Kaira Ki Dhani, Gram Panchayat Karsauli, District Karauli

¶305

Santosh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ganga Prasad Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Khari Patti, Gram Panchayat Dhindora, Tehsil Suroth District Karauli (Raj.)

¶306

Manoj Kumar Meena S/o Shri Nehru Lal Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Mothiyapur, District Karauli

¶307

Ramesh Chand Meena S/o Shri Ramkhiladi, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Meena Basti, Gram Panchayat Bajheda, District Karauli

¶308

Purushotam Lal Sharma S/o Shri Jiya Lal, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Vijaipura, Tehsil Suroth, District Karauli

----Petitioners

Versus

(15 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶315

Commissioner And Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶316

Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur Division, B Haratpur 4. District Collector And District Magistrate, Karauli 5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Karauli

¶317

Sub-Divisional Officer, Hindaun City District Karauli

¶318

----Respondents

¶319

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1026/2026

¶320

Dalip Singh Meena S/o Late Shri Sardar Singh, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Mothuka, Tehsil Bansoor, District Kotputli-Behror (Rajasthan)

¶321

Shubh Ram Meena S/o Shri Phool Chand, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Mothuka, Tehsil Bansoor, District Kotputli-Behror (Rajasthan)

¶322

Hira Lal S/o Shri Mamchand, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Mothuka, Tehsil Bansoor, District Kotputli-Behror (Rajasthan)

¶323

Batto Devi W/o Shri Bheem Singh, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Mothuka, Tehsil Bansoor, District KotputliBehror (Rajasthan)

¶324

Babu Lal S/o Shri Matadeen, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Mothuka, Tehsil Bansoor, District Kotputli-Behror (Rajasthan)

¶325

Kamal S/o Shri Surgyani, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Mothuka, Tehsil Bansoor, District Kotputli-Behror (Rajasthan)

¶326

Govindha S/o Shri Kainaya, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Mothuka, Tehsil Bansoor, District Kotputli-Behror (Rajasthan)

¶327

----Petitioners

¶328

Versus

¶329

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur

(16 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

District Collector, Kotputli-Behror

¶334

----Respondents

¶335

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1057/2026

¶336

Samay Singh Meena S/o Shri Netram Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Nithari, Post Jatwara, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar

¶337

Devilal Meena S/o Shriyaram, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Village Nithari, Post Jatwara, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar

¶338

Kailash Meena S/o Harsahai Meena, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Nithari, Post Jatwara, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar

¶339

Moti Lal Meena S/o Kherati Lal, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Village Nithari, Post Jatwara, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar

¶340

Jagram Meena S/o Late Chandra Ram Meena, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Nithari, Post Jatwara, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar

¶341

----Petitioners

¶342

Versus

¶343

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶344

Commissioner And Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶345

Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur Division, Jaipur

¶346

District Collector, Alwar

¶347

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Alwar

¶348

Sub-Divisional Officer, Kathumar District Alwar

¶349

----Respondents

¶350

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1220/2026

¶351

Rajendra Kumar S/o Surajmalji, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Meena Mohalla, Ballabhpura, Tehsil Digod, District Kota.

¶352

Rahim Bhai S/o Inahit Beg, R/o Ward No.9, Meena Mohalla, Ballabhpura, Tehsil Digod, District Kota.

¶353

Nandlal Gaur S/o Mohan Lal Gaur, R/o Ward No.9, Near Devnarain Mandir, Ballabhpura, Tehsil Digod, District

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

(17 of 68)

Kota.

----Petitioners

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Gramin Vikas And Department Of Panchayat Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶361

Upayukt And Up Sachiv (I), Gramin Vikas And Department Of Panchayat Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶362

District Collector, Kota, District, Kota, Rajasthan.

¶363

----Respondents

¶364

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1260/2026

¶365

Daulat Ram Meena S/o Hariram Meena, Aged About 77 Years, R/o Village Chimanpura, Post Talavgoan, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶366

Babu Lal Meena S/o Ram Sahay Meena, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village Kothiwali Dhani, Chimanpura, Post Talavgoan, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶367

----Petitioners

¶368

Versus

¶369

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶370

District Collector, Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶371

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶372

Sub Divisional Officer, Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶373

----Respondents

¶374

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13489/2024

¶375

Mahadev Pradad Meena S/o Goturam Meena, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Bachadi, District Alwar Now Residing At 35 C, Shankar Vihaar, Goner Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶376

----Petitioner

¶377

Versus

¶378

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The Government Of Rajasthan, Panchyati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶379

The District Collector, District Alwar.

(18 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

----Respondents

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18877/2025

¶385

Jagdish Singh S/o Shri Pukhraj Singh, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village Gurja, Sengpura, Tehsil Karauli District Karauli

¶386

----Petitioner

¶387

Versus

¶388

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶389

District Collector, Karauli Rajasthan

¶390

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Karauli

¶391

----Respondents

¶392

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18882/2025

¶393

Arjun Lal Bairwa S/o Shri Shyokaran Bairwa, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Chawandiya, Po Chavandia, District Tonk Rajasthan

¶394

----Petitioner

¶395

Versus

¶396

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶397

District Collector, Tonk Rajasthan 3. Chief Executive Officer Zila Parishad, Tonk Rajasthan

¶398

----Respondents

¶399

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19320/2025

¶400

Shyam Lal Meena Son Of Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Rada Dhani, Chandsen, District-Dausa (Rajasthan).

¶401

Chandalal Mahavar Son Of Shri Mangla Mahawar, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Koliya Basti Chandsen, Lalsot, District-Dausa (Rajasthan).

¶402

Hanif Beg Son Of Shri Habbu Khan, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Chandsen, Ward No.10, Lalsot, District-Dausa (Rajasthan).

¶403

Banwari Saini Son Of Shri Kanaram Saini, Aged About 29

(19 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Years, Resident Of Ward No.10, Chandsen, Lalsot, District-Dausa (Rajasthan).

¶408

----Petitioners

¶409

Versus

¶410

The State Of Rajasthan, Throught Secretary, Department Of Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶411

District Collector, Dausa (Rajasthan).

¶412

Sub-Divisonal Officer Lalsot, District-Dausa (Rajasthan).

¶413

----Respondents

¶414

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19436/2025

¶415

Premraj Mina Son Of Jainarayan, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Village Bhadlav Tehsil And District Sawaimadhopur.

¶416

----Petitioner

¶417

Versus

¶418

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶419

District Collector, Sawaimadhopur.

¶420

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sawaimadhopur.

¶421

----Respondents

¶422

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19559/2025

¶423

Motilal Bairwa Son Of Shri Ramsahay Bairwa, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Bairwa Mohalla, Village Rajgarh, Tehsil Mahawa, District Dausa, Rajasthan. Presently Sarpanch / Prashashak Gram Panchayat Rashidpur, Tehsil Mahawa, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶424

----Petitioner

¶425

Versus

¶426

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayati Raj Department), Government Of Rajasthan, Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat Campus, Secretariat, Jaipur - 302005 Rajasthan.

¶427

District Election Officer / District Collector, District Dausa, Dausa Collectorate, Somnath Nagar, Dausa - 303303

(20 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Rajasthan.

Sub Division Magistrate, Sdm Office, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa Rajasthan.

¶433

----Respondents

¶434

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19665/2025

¶435

Chain Singh S/o Shri Chatar Singh, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Village Rampuriya Jagir, Post Bansthuni, Tehsil Kishanganj, District Baran, Rajasthan.

¶436

----Petitioner

¶437

Versus

¶438

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Village Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur-302005 (Rajasthan).

¶439

1. Deputy Commissioner Cum Deputy Secretary (First), Village Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶440

1. District Collector, Baran, Rajasthan. 4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Kishanganj, District Baran, Rajasthan.

¶441

1. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Baran, District Baran, Rajasthan.

¶442

----Respondents

¶443

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19685/2025

¶444

Vikram Singh S/o Shri Ram Chandra Yadav, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Tehsil Mundawar, Village And Post Dadhiya, District Khairthal Tijara, Rajasthan.

¶445

Sachin S/o Shri Jaswant Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Dadhiya, District Khairthal Tijara, Rajasthan.

¶446

----Petitioners

¶447

Versus

¶448

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayat Raj, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶449

1. The Secretary And Commissioner, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayat Raj, Government

(21 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Secretariat, Jaipur.

The District Collector, Khairthal Tijara, Rajasthan.

¶455

The Sub Divisional Officer, Mundawar, District Khairthal Tijara, Rajasthan.

¶456

----Respondents

¶457

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20158/2025

¶458

Vinesh Kumar Verma S/o Gangaram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village- Bera- Baas, Panchayat Samiti Ramgarh, District Alwar.

¶459

Haneef Khan S/o Rustam, R/o Village- Bera- Baas, Panchayat Samiti Ramgarh, District Alwar.

¶460

Sahabdeen S/o Isab, Aged About 35 Years, R/o VillageBera- Baas, Panchayat Samiti Ramgarh, District Alwar.

¶461

Hakmuddin S/o Sookha Khan, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village- Bera- Baas, Panchayat Samiti Ramgarh, District Alwar.

¶462

Shaukat Khan S/o Jhadmal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village- Bera- Baas, Panchayat Samiti Ramgarh, District Alwar.

¶463

Deenu Khan S/o Sammi Khan, Aged About 80 Years, R/o Village- Bera- Baas, Panchayat Samiti Ramgarh, District Alwar.

¶464

----Petitioners

¶465

Versus

¶466

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Special Secretary To The Govt. And Director Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶467

Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶468

District Collector, District Alwar (Rajasthan)

¶469

----Respondents

¶470

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20181/2025

¶471

Shekhar Chouhan S/o Rajveer Singh Chouhan, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Hulmana Kalan, Tehsil Mundawar, District Khiarthal-Tijara Rajasthan.

¶472

Suraj Chouhan S/o Sajjan Singh, Aged About 32 Years,

(22 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

R/o Village And Post Hulmana Kalan, Tehsil Mundawar, District Khiarthal-Tijara, Rajasthan.

¶477

Kailash Chouhan S/o Ramchandar Chouhan, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village And Post Hulmana Kalan, Tehsil Mundawar, District Khiarthal-Tijara, Rajasthan.

¶478

Jagdish Meghwal S/o Maman Meghwal, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Village And Post Hulmana Kalan, Tehsil Mundawar, District Khiarthal-Tijara, Rajasthan.

¶479

Ramniwas Meena S/o Phul Singh Meena, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village And Post Hulmana Kalan, Tehsil Mundawar, District Khiarthal-Tijara, Rajasthan.

¶480

Nitesh Kumar S/o Balwant, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village And Post Hulmana Kalan, Tehsil Mundawar, District Khiarthal-Tijara, Rajasthan.

¶481

----Petitioners

¶482

Versus

¶483

State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretory Government Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat Jaipur.

¶484

Principal Secretory, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Rajasthan., Govt. Secretariat Jaipur.

¶485

District Collector, District Khairthal-Tijara, Raj.

¶486

----Respondents

¶487

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20565/2025

¶488

Sitaram Gurjar Son Of Shri Punya Ram Gujar, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Village Karanpur, Post Patauli, Tehsil Mahawa, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶489

----Petitioner

¶490

Versus

¶491

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶492

District Collector Dausa Rajasthan, Collectorate Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶493

Sub Division Magistrate, Sdm Office, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa Rajasthan.

¶494

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dausa, Rajasthan

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

(23 of 68)

----Respondents

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 97/2026

¶500

Dhanraj Mehta S/o Shri Indralal Mehta, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Kaloniya, Tehsil Shahbad, District Baran Rajasthan

¶501

----Petitioner

¶502

Versus

¶503

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶504

District Collector, Baran Rajasthan

¶505

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Baran Rajasthan

¶506

----Respondents

¶507

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 194/2026

¶508

Hanif Khan S/o Rustum, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Bera Bas Bera Was, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶509

----Petitioner

¶510

Versus

¶511

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶512

District Collector, Alwar, Rajasthan. 3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶513

----Respondents

¶514

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 299/2026

¶515

Alkesh, Aged About 27 Years, S/o Shri Ramchandra 2. Om Prakash Dhaka S/o Shri Haru Ram Dhaka, Aged About 49 Years, Both Are R/o Village Basni, Post Bairas, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶516

----Petitioners

¶517

Versus

¶518

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶519

The District Collector, Collectrate, Distt. Sikar, Rajasthan.

(24 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

----Respondents

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 325/2026

¶525

Hukum Singh S/o Shri Chandev Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Satvas, Tehsil Kaman, District Deeg (Rajasthan)

¶526

Jagendra Rajput S/o Shri Hukam Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Satvas, Tehsil Kaman, District Deeg (Rajasthan)

¶527

----Petitioners

¶528

Versus

¶529

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶530

The District Collector, District Deeg (Raj.)

¶531

The Sub- Divisional Officer, Kaman, Distt. Deeg (Raj.)

¶532

----Respondents

¶533

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 371/2026

¶534

Mangi Lal S/o Banshi Lal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Thari, Bundi, Rajasthan- 323022.

¶535

Ram Lal S/o Gyan Chand, Aged About 52 Years, R/o 55 Thadi, Dabi , Bundi, Rajasthan- 323022.

¶536

Lodki Lal S/o Khana Mil, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Thadi , Dabi, Bundi, Rajasthan- 323022.

¶537

Ramprakash S/o Rambllab, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Thari, Po- Dabi, Distt- Bundi, Rajasthan-323022.

¶538

Kishan Lal S/o Mangilal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Thadi, Dabi , Bundi, Rajasthan-323022.

¶539

----Petitioners

¶540

Versus

¶541

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary And Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶542

Local Self Department, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Line Crossing, Jaipur - 302016 Through The Principal Secretary.

¶543

Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department,

(25 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶548

Director Cum Special Secretary, Local Self Department, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Line Crossing, Jaipur - 302016.

¶549

District Collector, District Bundi, Rajasthan.

¶550

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bundi, Rajasthan.

¶551

----Respondents

¶552

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 412/2026

¶553

Arjun Singh S/o Govindram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village Hudera, Tehsil Ramgarh Shekhawati, Panchayat Samiti Ramgarh Shekhawati, District Sikar (Rajasthan).

¶554

----Petitioner

¶555

Versus

¶556

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶557

The Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶558

The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶559

The Authorized Officer (District Collector), Sikar.

¶560

----Respondents

¶561

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 416/2026

¶562

Krishna Gopal Sain S/o Shri Satyanarayan Sain, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Khatiyon Ka Mohalla, Village Kachnaria, Kachneriya, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶563

----Petitioner

¶564

Versus

¶565

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶566

District Collector, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶567

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶568

----Respondents

¶569

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 428/2026

(26 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Omprakash Sharma S/o Shri Laxminarayan Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Lalsar, Post Pal, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli

¶574

----Petitioner

¶575

Versus

¶576

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶577

District Collector, Karauli Rajasthan

¶578

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Karauli Rajasthan

¶579

----Respondents

¶580

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 434/2026

¶581

Bishan Singh S/o Shri Revat Singh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o 21, Rajpooto Ka Mohalla, Pinach, Phagi District Jaipur

¶582

----Petitioner

¶583

Versus

¶584

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶585

District Collector, Jaipur Rajasthan 3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaipur Rajasthan

¶586

----Respondents

¶587

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 440/2026

¶588

Sumer Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Near Sahakari Samiti, Neemli, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur.

¶589

----Petitioner

¶590

Versus

¶591

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶592

District Collector, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶593

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaipur Rajasthan

¶594

----Respondents

¶595

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 448/2026

(27 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Ram Singh Meena S/o Sh. Laxmi Narayan Meena, R/o Village Pragpura, Tehsil Raini, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶600

Ghanshyam Meena S/o Sh. Banwari Lal Meena, R/o Village Pragpura, Tehsil Raini, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶601

Rattiram Meena S/o Sh. Basanti Lal Meena, R/o Village Pragpura, Tehsil Raini, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶602

----Petitioners

¶603

Versus

¶604

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayat Raj, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶605

District Collector Alwar, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶606

Sub Divisional Officer, Raini District Alwar (Raj.)

¶607

----Respondents

¶608

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 542/2026

¶609

Villagers Of Village Baseri, Panchayati Samiti Karauli Through, Virendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuveer Singh, Resident Of Village Baseri (Sundarpura), Panchayati Samiti Karauli (Raj.)

¶610

----Petitioner

¶611

Versus

¶612

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director Cum The Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayatiraj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶613

The District Collector, Karauli, Dist. Karauli, Rajasthan.

¶614

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Karauli, Rajasthan.

¶615

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karauli, District Karauli, Rajasthan.

¶616

----Respondents

¶617

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 702/2026

¶618

Rajendra Kumar Dhaka, Aged About 42 Years, S/o Shri Mohan Lal Dhaka

¶619

Ramawatar Dhaka S/o Shri Surja Ram Dhaka, Aged About 57 Years, Both Are R/o Village Basni, Post Bairas, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

(28 of 68)

----Petitioners

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶626

The District Collector, Collectrate, Distt. Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶627

----Respondents

¶628

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 703/2026

¶629

Bihari Lal Ranwa, Aged About 45 Years, S/o Sh. Dula Ram 2. Om Prakash S/o Shri Puran Mal, Aged About 39 Years, Both Are R/o Village Bodlasi, Post Kachwa, Tehsil Nechwa, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶630

----Petitioners

¶631

Versus

¶632

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶633

The District Collector, Collectrate, Distt. Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶634

----Respondents

¶635

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 724/2026

¶636

Sardar Singh S/o Shri Bholuram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Neem Ki Dhani, Post Bamlas, Tehsil Gudhagaurji, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶637

Dara Singh S/o Moolchand, Aged About 57 Years, R/o R/o Village Neem Ki Dhani, Post Bamlas, Tehsil Gudhagaurji, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶638

----Petitioners

¶639

Versus

¶640

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Rural Development And Panchayatiraj Department (Panchayati Raj Department), Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶641

The District Collector, Jhunjhunu.

¶642

Sub- Divisional Officer, Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu.

¶643

Tehsildar, Tehsil Gudhagaurji, District Jhunjhunu.

¶644

----Respondents

¶645

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 746/2026

(29 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Veer Singh Bhati Son Of Late Shri Mangal, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Kandewla, Tehsil Pahari, Khandewla, District Deeg Rajasthan.

¶650

----Petitioner

¶651

Versus

¶652

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶653

The District Collector, District Deeg (Raj.)

¶654

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Pahari, Distt. Deeg (Raj.)

¶655

----Respondents

¶656

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 768/2026

¶657

Heera Lal Gurjar S/o Shri Nathu Lal Gurjar, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Kishanpura, Malwas, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶658

Kailash Chand Gurjar S/o Shri Ram Sahay Gurjar, Aged About 49 Years, Kishanpura Tapariya, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶659

Ramdhan Bairwa S/o Mulchand Bairwa, Aged About 42 Years, Kishanpura Tapariya, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶660

Amar Singh Gurjar S/o Bundi Narayan Gurjar, Aged About 49 Years, Kishanpura Tapariya, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶661

Asharam Gurjar S/o Hari Singh Gurjar, Aged About 44 Years, Kishanpura Bada, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶662

Vijay Singh Gurjar S/o Puni Ram Gurjar, Aged About 47 Years, Kishanpura Bada, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶663

Ramkaran Gurjar S/o Sravan Lal Gurjar, Aged About 48 Years, Bada, Kishanpura Tapariya, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶664

----Petitioners

¶665

Versus

¶666

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶667

District Collector, Dausa Rajasthan

¶668

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dausa Rajasthan

(30 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

----Respondents

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 792/2026

¶674

Jai Singh S/o Narsha Ram, Aged About 57 Years, Dhani Dangiyan, Hirawa, Buhana ,heerwa,jhunjhunu,333027

¶675

Harakesh S/o Kishori Lal, Aged About 48 Years, Silarpuri, P.o. Ghardana, Kalan,jhunjunun,333516

¶676

----Petitioners

¶677

Versus

¶678

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302003.

¶679

State Of Rajasthan, Through Deputy Secretary Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302003.

¶680

State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector Jhunjhunu Rajasthan,333516.

¶681

----Respondents

¶682

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 793/2026

¶683

Janta Bai W/o Sarjan Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Khanika, Devpura, Khanika/dwopura,bundi,rajasthan,323802

¶684

Banwari Banjara S/o Parthvaraj Banjara, Aged About 32 Years, Head Pump Ka Mohalla Khanika Urf Devpura,khanika, Dovpura, Bundi,rajasthan,323802

¶685

----Petitioners

¶686

Versus

¶687

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302003

¶688

State Of Rajasthan, Through Deputy Secretary Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302003

¶689

State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector Bundi Rajasthan,323802

¶690

----Respondents

¶691

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 794/2026

¶692

Vinod Kumawat S/o Ram Sahay Kumawat, Aged About 46 Years,

(31 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Ma Janki Peeli Chowk, Baya, Dantaramgarh, Bay, Sikar, Rajasthan, 332601.

¶697

----Petitioner

¶698

Versus

¶699

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302003

¶700

State Of Rajasthan, Through Deputy Secretary Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302003

¶701

State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector Sikar Rajasthan,332601

¶702

State Of Rajasthan, Through The S.d.m Of Dantaramgrah, Sikar, Rajasthan,332601

¶703

----Respondents

¶704

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 797/2026

¶705

Satyanarayan S/o. Rajaram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o. Bilaspur, Uniyara, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶706

Dharm Raj Gurjar S/o. Babu Lal Gurjar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o. Gurjar Ka Mohalla, Gram Raghunathpura, Ranipura, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶707

Ram Singh S/o. Ramnivas, Aged About 54 Years, R/o. Bilaspur, Uniyara, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶708

----Petitioners

¶709

Versus

¶710

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶711

Commissioner And Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶712

District Collector, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶713

Panchayat Samiti Uniyara, District Tonk

¶714

----Respondents

¶715

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 816/2026

¶716

Jitendra Singh Meena S/o Shri Ramswaroop Meena, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village And Post Narayana Tehsil Masalpur District

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

(32 of 68)

Karauli Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶724

District Collector, Karauli Rajasthan.

¶725

----Respondents

¶726

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 853/2026

¶727

Anuraj Mothiya Son Of Shri Mahesh Chand Meena, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Kirwada, Tehsil Todabheem, District Karauli -322220 (Rajasthan).

¶728

----Petitioner

¶729

Versus

¶730

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary And Commissioner, Gramin Vikas And Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayati Raj), Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶731

Deputy Commissioner And Deputy Secretary, To Government-First, Gramin Vikas And Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayati Raj), Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶732

----Respondents

¶733

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 861/2026

¶734

Nathu Lal Gurjar S/o Shri Ramswaroop Gurjar, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Gurjar Ki Dhani, Thikariya, Nihaipura, Dausa (Raj.)

¶735

----Petitioner

¶736

Versus

¶737

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶738

District Collector, Dausa, Rajasthan

¶739

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dausa, Rajasthan

----Respondents

(33 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 878/2026

¶745

Manish Mourya Son Of Shri Amar Chand, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Narhet, Alwar (Raj.)

¶746

Devendra Kumar Mourya Son Of Shri Rajendra Prasad Mourya, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Narhet, Alwar (Raj.)

¶747

----Petitioners

¶748

Versus

¶749

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Dy. Secretary Administration (First), Village Development And Panchayatiraj Department (Panchayatiraj), Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶750

District Collector, Alwar, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶751

Sub Divisional Officer, Thanagaji, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶752

Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Pratapgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶753

----Respondents

¶754

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 881/2026

¶755

Madanlal Sharma S/o Shri Chhoturam Sharma, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Kalyanpura, Chaksu, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)

¶756

----Petitioner

¶757

Versus

¶758

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶759

District Collector, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶760

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶761

----Respondents

¶762

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 884/2026

¶763

Raju Singh Naruka S/o Mohan Singh Naruka, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Pachala, Tehsil Phagi, Distt. Jaipur

¶764

----Petitioner

¶765

Versus

¶766

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj

(34 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶771

District Collector, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶772

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶773

----Respondents

¶774

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 885/2026

¶775

Ramjilal Bairwa S/o Shri Ramsukha, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Hamirpura, Dausa, Distt. Dausa

¶776

----Petitioner

¶777

Versus

¶778

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶779

District Collector, Dausa, Rajasthan

¶780

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dausa, Rajasthan

¶781

----Respondents

¶782

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 896/2026

¶783

Sitaram Meena S/o Shri Mangilal Meena, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Baga Wali Dhani, Ajabpura, Shivsinghpura, Dausa, Distt. Dausa

¶784

----Petitioner

¶785

Versus

¶786

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶787

District Collector, Dausa, Rajasthan

¶788

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dausa, Rajasthan

¶789

----Respondents

¶790

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 901/2026

¶791

Satyanarayan Bairwa S/o Shri Hariprasad Bairwa, Aged About 40 Years, R/o House No. 32, Suratpura, Dausa, Distt. Dausa

¶792

----Petitioner

¶793

Versus

¶794

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal

(35 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶799

District Collector, Dausa, Rajasthan

¶800

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dausa, Rajasthan

¶801

----Respondents

¶802

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 912/2026

¶803

Ganesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Nathu Lal Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Jonapa Ki Dhani, Tehsil Lalsot, Distt. Dausa (Raj.)

¶804

----Petitioner

¶805

Versus

¶806

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶807

District Collector, Dausa Rajasthan

¶808

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶809

----Respondents

¶810

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 915/2026

¶811

Mukesh Kumar Son Of Shri Pura Ram, Aged About 30 Years, Permanent Residing At Village- Puniyana, Tehsil-Dantaramgarh, Panchayat Samiti Dantaramgarh, District-Sikar (Raj.)

¶812

----Petitioner

¶813

Versus

¶814

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, (Panchayati Raj Department), Jaipur.

¶815

The District Collector/district Election Officer, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶816

The Sub Divisional Officer/sub Divisional Magistrate, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶817

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sikar, District Sikar (Rajasthan).

¶818

----Respondents

¶819

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 981/2026

¶820

Bharat Lal Meena S/o Ramjilal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o 12,

¶821

(36 of 68) [CW-988/2026]

¶822

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

¶823

Santa Ka Pura, Chakgazipur, Post Kariri, Todabhim, District Karauli.

¶824

----Petitioner

¶825

Versus

¶826

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶827

The Addional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶828

The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶829

The District Collector, Karauli.

¶830

----Respondents

¶831

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 989/2026

¶832

Kamlesh Kumar Meena S/o Kalu Ram Meena, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Diwacha Dani, Vijaipura, Post Srimaa, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶833

----Petitioner

¶834

Versus

¶835

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶836

District Collector, Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶837

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dausa, Rajasthan.

¶838

----Respondents

¶839

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1012/2026

¶840

Uday Lal Gurjar S/o Radhakishan Gurjar, Aged About 27 Years, Shri Nagar, Shree Nagar, Kanechan Kalan, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, 311407

¶841

----Petitioner

¶842

Versus

¶843

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Of Rajasthan , Jaipur, Rajasthan 302003

¶844

State Of Rajasthan, Through Deputy Secretary Of Rural

(37 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Development And Panchayati Raj Department Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302003

¶849

State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector Bhilwara Rajasthan, 311001

¶850

----Respondents

¶851

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1016/2026

¶852

1. Jaikam Khan S/o Ramjan Khan, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Village Maliki, Tehsil Pahari, Bharatpur (Now District Deeg), Rajasthan.

¶853

Jafrudeen S/o Suleman, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village Maliki, Tehsil Pahari, Bharatpur (Now District Deeg), Rajasthan.

¶854

Kamarudeen S/o Asar Khan, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Village Maliki, Tehsil Pahari, Bharatpur (Now District Deeg), Rajasthan.

¶855

----Petitioners

¶856

Versus

¶857

State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Dept., Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶858

District Collector, District Deeg, Rajasthan. 3. Sub Divisional Magistrate (S.d.m.), District Deeg, Rajasthan.

¶859

Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Pahari, District Deeg, Rajasthan

¶860

----Respondents

¶861

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1042/2026

¶862

1. Jamil Khan S/o Didar Khan, Aged About 56 Years, Phalsawata, Falsawata, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan 322028.

¶863

Samsuddin Khan S/o Mahtab Khan, Aged About 82 Years, Gud Khana, Phalsawata, Falsawata, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan 322028.

¶864

----Petitioners

¶865

Versus

¶866

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Of

(38 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302003

¶871

State Of Rajasthan, Through Deputy Secretary Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302003

¶872

State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan, 322001

¶873

----Respondents

¶874

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1043/2026

¶875

Chhittar Mal Khedar, Son Of Shri Ramdhan Khedar, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Ratanpura, Tehsil Shrimadhopur District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶876

----Petitioner

¶877

Versus

¶878

State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶879

The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶880

District Collector, Sikar, Rajasthan. 4. Sub-Division Officer, Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶881

Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Shri Madhopur, District Sikar

¶882

----Respondents

¶883

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1056/2026

¶884

Roop Singh S/o Shri Jagan, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Village Bandh Ka Nagla, Post Hukmi Khera Karauli, Rajasthan32236

¶885

----Petitioner

¶886

Versus

¶887

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary And Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶888

The Deputy Secretary And Deputy Commissioner (I), Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayati Raj Department), Jaipur

(39 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

The Chief Electoral Officer, State Of Rajasthan, Room No.5213, Main Building, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶893

The District Electoral Officer And District Collector, Karauli, District Karauli

¶894

----Respondents

¶895

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1058/2026

¶896

Prakash Chandra S/o Shri Surajmal Gurjar, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Village Dhand Ka Pura, Post Kaimari, Tehsil Nandauti, District Karauli-322216 (Raj.)

¶897

----Petitioner

¶898

Versus

¶899

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary And Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶900

The Deputy Secretary And Deputy Commissioner (I), Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayati Raj Department), Jaipur

¶901

The District Collector, Karauli, District Karauli

¶902

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Karauli, District Karauli

¶903

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nandauti, District Karauli

¶904

The Block Development Officer, Block Nandauti, District Karauli.

¶905

----Respondents

¶906

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1108/2026

¶907

Rahul Kumar S/o Anil Kumar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Naiwari, Newada, Weir, Bharatpur Rajasthan - 321407

¶908

Sachin S/o Sajjan, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Naiwari, Weir, Bharatpur Rajasthan-321407

¶909

----Petitioners

¶910

Versus

¶911

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶912

Commissioner And Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur

(40 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur

¶917

District Collector And District Magistrate, Bharatpur

¶918

Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhusawar District Bharatpur

¶919

----Respondents

¶920

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1221/2026

¶921

Rajendra Singh Gurjar S/o Sarup Gurjar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Bhanwarpura, Post- Sasedi, Bhanwarpura, Dist. Karauli, Rajasthan, 322249.

¶922

----Petitioner

¶923

Versus

¶924

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302003

¶925

State Of Rajasthan, Through Deputy Secretary Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302003

¶926

State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector Karauli Rajasthan, 302016

¶927

----Respondents

¶928

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1226/2026

¶929

Mahesh Kumar Gupta S/o Jagdish Prashad, Aged About 44 Years, Mirzapur, Palwa, Alwar, Rajasthan, 301706

¶930

----Petitioner

¶931

Versus

¶932

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302003

¶933

State Of Rajasthan, Through Deputy Secretary Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302003

¶934

State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector Alwar Rajasthan, 301001

¶935

----Respondents

¶936

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1235/2026

¶937

1. Jagdish S/o Rambharoshi, Aged About 45 Years, Unchagaon, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, 321303

(41 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Arjun Singh S/o Vijendra Singh, Aged About 45 Years, Unchagaon, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, 321303

¶942

----Petitioners

¶943

Versus

¶944

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302003.

¶945

State Of Rajasthan, Through Deputy Secretary Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302003.

¶946

State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector Bharatpur Rajasthan, 321001

¶947

----Respondents

¶948

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1259/2026

¶949

Rameshwar Dayal Sharma, Son Of Shri Deviram Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Village Gehlawata, Gram Panchayat Khedli-Sokhar, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar.

¶950

----Petitioner

¶951

Versus

¶952

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶953

The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶954

The District Collector, Alwar.

¶955

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar.

¶956

----Respondents

¶957

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1263/2026

¶958

Chatar Singh S/o Ramswroop, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village Bandha Chouth, Tehsil Deeg, District Deeg, Rajasthan.

¶959

----Petitioner

¶960

Versus

¶961

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government

(42 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Secretariat, Jaipur.

Secretary And Commissioner, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶967

District Collector, Deeg, Rajasthan.

¶968

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Deeg, Rajasthan.

¶969

Sub Divisional Officer, Deeg, District Deeg, Rajasthan.

¶970

----Respondents

¶971

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1265/2026

¶972

Roop Singh S/o Shri Mohan Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Chak Darapur No.2, Post Adhapur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

¶973

----Petitioner

¶974

Versus

¶975

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶976

The Secretary And Commissioner, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶977

District Collector, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. 4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

¶978

Sub Divisional Officer, Uchchain, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

¶979

----Respondents

¶980

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1269/2026

¶981

Meetha Lal Meena S/o Shri Hajari Lal Meena, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Bhaglawa, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶982

Ram Gopal Meena S/o Shri Ram Sahay Meena, Aged About 55 Years, Village Jaishingpura, Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶983

----Petitioners

¶984

Versus

¶985

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Dy. Secretary Administration (First), Village Development And

(43 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Panchayatiraj Department (Panchayatiraj), Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶990

District Collector, Dausa, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶991

Sub Divisional Officer, Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶992

Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶993

----Respondents

¶994

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1273/2026

¶995

Lokesh Kumar Bairwa S/o Raghunath Bairwa, Aged About 35 Years, Koomla, Kota, Rajaathan, 325204

¶996

Suresh Kumar S/o Bhavar Lal, Aged About 35 Years, Koomla, Takarwada, Kota, Rajasthan, 325204

¶997

----Petitioners

¶998

Versus

¶999

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302003

¶1000

State Of Rajasthan, Through Deputy Secretary Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302003

¶1001

State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector Kota Rajasthan- 323802

¶1002

----Respondents

¶1003

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1323/2026

¶1004

Dhan Singh Son Of Pappi Lal, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Village Kanwati, Panchayat Samiti, Sapotra, District Karauli (Rajasthan)

¶1005

Mukesh Son Of Mangi Lal, Resident Of Poothankapura, Kanwati, Panchayat Samiti, Sapotra, District Karauli (Rajasthan)

¶1006

Prathvi Son Of Rama, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Village Kanwati, Panchayat Samiti, Sapotra, District Karauli (Rajasthan)

¶1007

Ramjilal Bairwa Son Of Gopi, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Banda Ki Dongari, Panchayat Samiti, Sapotra, District Karauli (Rajasthan)

(44 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Ramkhiladi Son Of Chhote Lal, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Village Kanwati, Panchayat Samiti, Sapotra, District Karauli (Rajasthan)

¶1012

Amrit Son Of Ramshree, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village Kanwati, Panchayat Samiti, Sapotra, District Karauli (Rajasthan)

¶1013

Bharat Lal Son Of Chhote Lal, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Village Kanwati, Panchayat Samiti, Sapotra, District Karauli (Rajasthan).

¶1014

----Petitioners

¶1015

Versus

¶1016

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayati Raj Department), Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶1017

Deputy Commissioner And Deputy Secretary-I, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department). Department (Panchayati Raj Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶1018

District Collector, Karauli, District Karauli.

¶1019

----Respondents

¶1020

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1357/2026

¶1021

Shushila Devi W/o Babulal Achara, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Dheerajpura, Post Lakhni, Via Reengus, District Sikar, Presently Administrator, Gram Panchayat, Chomu Purohitan, Tehsil Reengus, Panchayat Samiti Khandela, District Sikar.

¶1022

Sitaram Achara S/o Sh. Nathuram Ji Achara, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Dheerajpura, Post Lakhni, Via Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶1023

----Petitioners

¶1024

Versus

¶1025

State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶1026

Secretary And Commissioner, Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶1027

District Collector, Sikar-332001.

(45 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sikar. 5. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sub-Division Khandela, Khandela, District Sikar.

¶1032

Sh. Subhash Meel S/o Sh. Hanuman, R/o Sonthaliya, Post Baodi, Tehsil Reengus, District Sikar, Presently Residing At Opposite Electricity Board Khandela, District Sikar - 332709, And Holding The Post Of Member Legislative Assembly, Khandela, District Sikar.

¶1033

----Respondents

¶1034

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20805/2025

¶1035

Bhoopendra Singh S/o Shri Dataram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Silawat, Gram Panchayat - Silawat, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.

¶1036

Shamveer S/o Shri Prabhudayal, R/o Village Silawat, Gram Panchayat - Silawat, Tehsil - Rajakheda, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.

¶1037

Hansraj S/o Shri Baburam, R/o Village Silawat, Gram Panchayat - Silawat, Tehsil - Rajakheda, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.

¶1038

Hotam Singh S/o Shri Laksmi Narayan, R/o Village Silawat, Gram Panchayat - Silawat, Tehsil - Rajakheda, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.

¶1039

----Petitioners

¶1040

Versus

¶1041

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶1042

District Collector, Dholpur, District Dholpur.

¶1043

Sub Divisional Officer, Rajakheda, District Dholpur.

¶1044

Tehsildar, Rajakheda, District Dholpur.

¶1045

Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samit Rajakheda, District Dholpur.

¶1046

----Respondents

¶1047

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 790/2026

(46 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Indraraj Meena S/o Shri Kanaihya, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Banjharli, Post Chardana, Tehsil K. Patan, District Bundi Rajasthan

¶1052

----Petitioner

¶1053

Versus

¶1054

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶1055

District Collector, Bundi Rajasthan

¶1056

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bundi

¶1057

Sub Divisional Magistrate, K. Patan, District Bundi

¶1058

----Respondents

¶1059

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 197/2026

¶1060

Ratiram S/o Shobha Ram, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Bansi, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶1061

Yadram S/o Ummed Singh, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Bansi, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶1062

Puran Singh S/o Shri Murari Lal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Bansi, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶1063

Babu Singh S/o Shri Shobha Ram, Aged About 80 Years, R/o Bansi, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶1064

----Petitioners

¶1065

Versus

¶1066

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, (Panchayati Raj Department), Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶1067

District Collector, Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶1068

Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur. 4. Tehsildar, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur.

----Respondents

(47 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R.D. Meena. Mr. Suresh Pareek, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.L. Sharma. Mr. Rahul Kamwar, Mr. Vaibhav Nirmal, Mr. Bharat Kumar, Mr. Shubham Rohila. Mr. Raghunandan Sharma with Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Mr. Ayush Bishnoi. Mr. Prem Chand Dewanda with Mr. Abhisehk Singh & Mr. Ajay Poonia. Mr. Vikas Meena with Mr. Ravi Palsaniya. Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma. Mr. A.R. Meena. Mr. Lakhan Singh Tomar. Mr. Hari Kishan Saini. Mr. Sudarshan Laddha. Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura. Mr. Vaibhav Nirmal. Mr. Lakshya Sharma. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma. Mr. Balveer Singh Beniwal. Ms. Aradhana Swami. Mr. Khurshid Ahmed Khan. Mr. Pradeep Kalwania. Mr. Jai Raj Tantia. Mr. Dharmendra Sharma. Mr. Ved Prakash Saini. Mr. Asgar Khan. Mr. Satyapal Poshwal. Mr. Pradeep Singh. Mr. Anil Kumer Beri. Ms. Komal Dua. Mr. Piyush Sharma. Mr. Hari Kishan Saini. Mr. Sanjay Mehrish. Mr. Ram Pratap Saini. Mr. Mayank Kumar Choudhary. Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat. Mr. Prashant Kumar Sharma. Mr. Himanshu Jain. Mr. Dharmendra Sharma. Mr. Anupam Sharma. Mr. Sumer Singh Ola. Mr. Prashant Kumar Sharma. Mr. Ankur Rastogi. Mr. Azad Ahmed. Mr. Hanuman Choudhary. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahala.

(48 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

	Mr. Anurag Shukla. Mr. Gajendra Vyas. Mr. Ravi Kumar Palsaniya. Mr. Bharat Yadav. Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma. Mr. Yashodhar Pandey. Mr. Vivek Joshi. Mr. Atar Singh. Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi. Ms. Monika. Mr. Tanveer Ahamd. Mr. R.D. Meena. Mr. Sandeep Saxena. Mr. Aamir Khan.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General assisted by Ms. Harhita Thakral & Ms. Dhriti Laddha & Mr. Tanmay Goyal. Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with Mr. Ashutosh, Mr. Prateek Saxena, Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Ms. Divya Rathore, Ms. Anshul, Mr. Anjali, Mr. Pranay Sharma, Mr. Sumit Purohit. Mr. Savita Nathawat.

¶1078

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

¶1079

Order

¶1080

21/01/2026

¶1081

In the present batch of the petitions, since common questions are involved, therefore, at the request of counsel for the parties, these petitions have been heard together and are being decided by the present order.

¶1082

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the notifications dated 20.11.2025 and 28.12.2025 issued by the respondents in relation to delimitation of various Gram Panchayats, Panchayat Samitis, and Zila Parishads; change of their headquarters; merger of one Gram Panchayat with

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

(49 of 68)

another; inclusion or exclusion of villages from one Gram Panchayat to another.

¶1087

The facts, as prayed, have been noticed from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.988/2025. In the first round of litigation, several writ petitions (CWP-7781/2025-Sheela Kumari Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., & other petitions) were filed before this Court challenging the initiation of the process of delimitation of Gram Panchayats, Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads by the State Government. The said writ petitions were decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.11.2025 directing the respondents to conclude the process of delimitation by 31.12.2025 with a further direction to hold the elections of all the local bodies, including Panchayats and Municipalities, on or before 15.04.2026. The order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court was challenged by some of the writ petitioners before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing of Special Leave Petition No. 36874 of 2025 (Sanyam Lodha v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), wherein the State Government gave an undertaking to conclude the elections by 15.04.2026 and the said SLP was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 19-12-2025. The aforesaid order 14.11.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court was also challenged by some of the writ petitioners before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing of Special Leave to Appeal No.34/2026 (Villagers of Revenue Village Singhaniya & Anr Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and the said SLP was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court granting liberty to the aggrieved persons to approach the competent authority with regard to shifting of

[CW-988/2026]

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

(50 of 68)

headquarters. Subsequently, in furtherance of the earlier notification issued under Sections 9, 10, & 101 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1994”), the respondents issued another notification dated 20.11.2025. After conclusion of the proceedings, a further notification dated 28.12.2025 was issued for correction of clerical mistakes as well as for considering the representations and making additional amendments in the earlier notification. Both these notifications dated 20.11.2025 & 28.12.2025, as stated above, have been challenged in the present batch of the petitions. 4. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners argued that by issuance of the notifications impugned herein, the respondents have included their villages in other Gram Panchayats without any justifiable reason. They further argued that the headquarters of certain Gram Panchayats have been shifted arbitrarily from one village to another without any administrative exigency. They further argued that the respondents have failed to follow their own guidelines governing the inclusion or exclusion of villages from one Gram Panchayat to another or from one Panchayat Samiti to another. They further argued that some villages have been attached to the Gram Panchayats situated at a distance of more than 6 km, which is in violation of their own guidelines. They further argued that the respondents have issued the impugned notifications, ignoring the report submitted by the District Collector, which was favourable to the petitioners. Counsels further argued that the respondents have adopted a pick and choose policy while including or excluding villages from

(51 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

particular Gram Panchayats. Counsels further argued that no prior notice was issued to the affected villagers before issuance of the impugned notifications. Counsels further argued that the action taken by the respondents reflects total non-application of mind and the entire exercise has been carried out in an arbitrary manner, just to give benefit to their own people. Counsels further argued that the respondents have not followed the procedure prescribed under Sections 9,10, 101 & 115 of the Act of 1994. Counsels further argued that the respondents failed to consider that certain Panchayat headquarters had been functioning in particular villages for more than 50 years. Counsels further argued that there was no administrative exigency warranting the change of Panchayat headquarters while giving effect to such changes and the respondents failed to consider the relevant and material facts such as the existence of primary health centres, post offices, banks, and the proximity of villages to State and National Highways.

¶1096

In support of their contentions, learned counsels relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme in the matter of Telangana Housing Board v. Azamunnisa Begum reported in (2018) 7 SCC 346 , wherein paras No.48 & 49, it has been held as under:-

¶1097

“48. That apart, the correction of the alleged clerical error does not give rise to the argument that only 661.04 acres was acquired out of 687.03 acres. If the correction gives rise to an argument or contention, then it ceases to be the correction of a clerical error but is really the correction of a substantive error, which does not come within the purview of Section 87 of the Act.

(52 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

49. Be that as it may, in Tata Consulting Engineers v. Workmen [Tata Consulting Engineers v. Workmen, 1980 Supp SCC 627 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 407] Pathak, J. adverted to a clerical error and held in para 20 of the report as follows: (SCC p. 637)

¶1102

“20. … The jurisdiction given to the [Industrial] Tribunal by Rule 31 [Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957] is closely circumscribed. It is only a clerical mistake or error which can be corrected, and the clerical mistake or error must arise from an accidental slip or omission in the award. An accidental slip or omission implies that something was intended and contrary to that intention what should not have been included has been included or what should have been included has been omitted. It must be a mistake or error amenable to clerical correction only. It must not be a mistake or error which calls for rectification by modification of the conscious adjudication on the issues involved.”

¶1103

Learned counsels further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shayara Bano v. Union of India reported in 2017 (9) SCC 1 , wherein para No.95, it has been held as under:-

¶1104

95. On a reading of this judgment in Natural Resources Allocation case [ Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 , (2012) 10 SCC 1] , it is clear that this Court did not read McDowell [ State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co. , (1996) 3 SCC 709] as being an authority for the proposition that legislation can never be struck down as being arbitrary. Indeed the Court, after referring to all the earlier judgments, and Ajay Hasia [ Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi , (1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258] in particular, which stated that legislation can be struck down on the ground that it is “arbitrary” under Article 14, went on to conclude that “arbitrariness” when applied to legislation cannot be used loosely. Instead, it broad based the test, stating that if a constitutional infirmity is found, Article 14 will interdict such infirmity. And a constitutional infirmity is found in Article 14 itself whenever legislation is “manifestly arbitrary” i.e. when it is

(53 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

not fair, not reasonable, discriminatory, not transparent, capricious, biased, with favouritism or nepotism and not in pursuit of promotion of healthy competition and equitable treatment. Positively speaking, it should conform to norms which are rational, informed with reason and guided by public interest, etc.”

¶1109

Learned counsels further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Atma Singh v. State of Punjab , reported in 1981 (2) SCC 657 , wherein para Nos.7 & 11, it has been held as under:-

¶1110

7. The whole purpose of delimitation of municipalities into wards is to ensure that every citizen should get a fair representation in the municipalities. When a municipality is reconstituted by the inclusion of any local area within the limits of a municipality under sub-section (3) of Section 5 or by the exclusion of any local area from the limits of a municipality under Section 7, i.e. when there is an alteration of the limits of the municipality, there must of necessity be a division of the reconstituted municipality into new wards without which the elections cannot be held. There can be no disenfranchisement of a part of the electorate of a municipality. The question was dealt with at some length by the Gujarat High Court in Bhaichandbhai Maganlal Shah v. State of Gujarat [8 Guj LR 210 (Guj HC)] and it was observed: “It must follow logically and inevitably from this proposition that the constitution of wards dividing the whole of the municipal district is a sine qua non of a valid election. If no wards at all are constituted, in the municipal district, the machinery of election cannot go through and equally the machinery of election cannot go through if wards are constituted in respect of a part of the municipal district and the other part is not divided into any ward or wards. In such a case there would be lists of voters for the wards which are constituted out of a part of the municipal district but there would be no lists of voters so far as the other part of the municipal district is concerned and no one from that part would be qualified to vote or to stand as a candidate for the election and no Councillors being elected by that part, there would be no representation of that part on the municipality. Where such a situation arises,

(54 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

it is difficult to see how the municipality can be said to be a municipality for the whole of the municipal district within the meaning of Section 9.” We approve of the view taken by the Gujarat High Court.

¶1115

We are distressed to find that due to the stay order passed by the Division Bench a large number of inhabitants of the local areas brought within the municipal limits under sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act, who were otherwise eligible to be enrolled as voters, have thereby been deprived not only of their valuable right to vote at the election but also of the right to contest as a candidate for election as a Councillor from any of the wards of the municipality or to the office of the President or the Vice-President. But there is little that can be done in the matter at this stage.

¶1116

Learned counsels further relied upon the judgment passed by

¶1117

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of M.P. Vs. Devilal , reported in 1986 (1) SCC 657 wherein paras No.12 to 15, it has been held as under:-

¶1118

12. A close and combined reading of these provisions and the other provisions of the Act which follow hereafter make it quite evident that the actual control over the Gram Panchayat in a block is through the Janapada Panchayat for the block. It would also appear that the result of the elections to the Janapada Panchayat would depend upon the nature of the electoral roll prepared for each constituency in a block. If the State Government were to issue a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 106 of the Act for redistribution of the constituencies in a block after the process of election has started, it would necessarily change the whole pattern of voting in the election of members to the Janapada Panchayat. This is plainly a typical case of gerrymandering. As is well known, “gerrymander” is an American expression which has taken root in the English language, meaning to arrange election districts so as to give an unfair advantage to the party in power by means of a redistribution act or to manipulate constituencies generally.

¶1119

Question of delimitation of constituencies in a block under sub-section (1) of Section 106 of the Act is connected with the holding of election of members to the Janapada Panchayat. Question of

(55 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

delimitation of such constituencies would necessarily arise when there is alteration in the limits of a Gram Sabha area under sub-section (2) of Section 361 of the Act which brings about a change in a block or alteration in the limits of the block, under sub-section (4) of Section 370. It is not necessary for us to go into details except to refer to certain relevant provisions. Amalgamation, splitting up and alteration in the limits of Gram Sabhas have to be carried out after following the procedure prescribed by Sections 360 and 361. Section 362 provides that where a notification under Section 361 has been issued, the State Government may make such consequential orders as it may deem fit in respect of ( a ) the constitution of the Gram Sabha and the Gram Panchayat for the altered area where a local area has been included in or excluded from a Gram Sabha; ( b ) for the dissolution of the existing Gram Sabhas which have been amalgamated and the Gram Panchayats or subordinate agencies thereof, as the case may be, and the constitution of the amalgamated Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat thereafter; ( c ) the dissolution of the Gram Sabhas split up and the constitution of the Gram Sabhas established in its place and the constitution of the Gram Panchayats thereafter and matters ancillary thereto.

¶1124

Alteration of the limits of a block can be effected by the State Government after following the procedure prescribed in Section 370 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 370 provides that the State Government may, by notification, signify its intention to alter the limits of a block by including therein any local area in the vicinity thereof or by excluding therefrom any local area comprised therein. Sub-section (2) provides that every such notification shall define the limits of the local area which is intended to be included in or excluded from a block. Sub-section (3) provides that any inhabitant of the area or areas affected by a notification under sub-section (1) may, if he objects to anything therein contained, submit his objection in writing to the State Government within 60 days of the publication of the notification and the State Government shall take his objection into consideration. Sub-section (4) provides that when 60 days from the date of publication of the notification have expired and the State Government has considered and passed orders on such objections as may have been submitted to it within the said period, the State Government may, by notification, include the local area or any part

(56 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

thereof in the block or exclude it therefrom. Section 371 provides that on the issue of a notification under sub-section (4) of Section 370, the State Government may make such consequential orders as it may deem fit in respect of ( i ) the constitution of Janapada Panchayat for the altered area, etc. When there is an alteration in the limits of a Gram Sabha area under subsection (2) of Section 361 or in the limits of a block under sub-section (4) of Section 370, it may be that the State Government would have to issue the requisite notification for delimitation of the constituencies of such altered block under subsection (1) of Section 106 of the Act.

¶1129

In the instant case, there was no alteration either in the limits of the Gram Sabha area under sub-section (2) of Section 361 or of the block under sub-section (4) of Section 370 and therefore no occasion for the State Government to issue a fresh notification under sub-section (1) of Section 106 of the Act purporting to restructure the constituencies of the block. We have no doubt in our mind that the impugned notification dated November 25, 1970 issued by the State Government seeking to alter the constituencies of the blocks after the process of election of members to the Janapada Panchayat had started and that by the Collector dated November 29, 1970 for the reallocation of the reserved seats for the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were wholly mala fide and intended and meant to gain control over the Janapada Panchayat and were therefore liable to be struck down.

¶1130

Learned counsels further relied upon the judgment passed by this High Court in the matter of Bhanwar Lal Mundra and Ors.

¶1131

vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. , reported in 2013 (3) WLC (Raj.) 255 wherein para Nos.23 & 26, it has been held as

¶1132

under:-

¶1133

“23. In the present case, we find that the Gram Panchayat Napasar has matured itself into an urban area and with almost all the urban facilities available in Napasar, it has moved on the path of urbanization and was declared as Municipality Class IV by the State Government. The right to development has been recognized to be included

(57 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

in the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is a component of right to life. It cannot be treated as a mere right to economic betterment and includes within it an umbrella of fundamental human right such as civil, political, cultural and social process, right to health, education and for decent and clean environment, vide N.D. Jayal v. Union of India (MANU/SC/0649/2003 : (2004) 9 SCC 362), in which reliance was placed on Samatha v. State of A.P. (1997) 8 SCC 191) and Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar : (1996) 5 SCC 125). In Election Commission of India v. St. Mary's School (2008)2 SCC 390), it was held that the right to development is a valuable human right.

¶1138

For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that the Notification dated 18.9.2009 issued by the State Government withdrawing the Notification dated 6.10.2008 declaring village Panchayat Napasar as Municipality Class-IV, is illegal, arbitrary and has been issued by the State Government with oblique and retrograde purpose, for which it did not have any power to advice the Governor to issue such Notification. The impugned Notification is declared unconstitutional being violative of Article 21 and Article 243Q in Part-IX-A of the Constitution of India as inserted by Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 with effect from 1.6.1993. It is also declared to be a retrograde step of governance by the State Government, which cannot be sustained in law.

¶1139

Learned counsels further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs.

¶1140

Darshan Singh reported in 2004 (1) SCC 328.

¶1141

Lastly, learned counsels for petitioners prayed for allowing the writ petitions and quashing the impugned notifications. 12. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, (Senior Counsel) learned Advocate General along with Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and argued that the issue involved in these writ petitions has already been

(58 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

considered and decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Sheela Kumari (supra), which does not require any further adjudication by this Court. In para nos.91, 110, 148, 150, 165, 166, 167, 201, 207 & 224 of the judgment passed in the matter of Sheela Kumari (supra) it has been held as under :-

¶1146

“91. In various writ petitions, final notification issued under Section 101 of the Act of 1994 as well as under Section 3 of the Act of 2009 regarding delimitation of Panchayat area as well as delimitation of Municipal area respectively, are challenged on various grounds. Apart from countering the averments made in the writ petition on merits, various preliminary objections were raised by the respondent regarding maintainability of the said writ petitions. The learned Advocate General submitted that in view of the constitutional as well as statutory bar of interference, the writ petitions against the final notification of delimitation are not maintainable. In view of the rival submissions, following questions emanates for adjudication by this Court.

¶1147

1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable against the final notifications of Delimitation, in view of the Bar of interference provided under Constitution of India as well as provisions of respective statutes?

¶1148

2. What is the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matters relating to Delimitation notifications?

¶1149

3. Whether the guidelines issued by the State Government for undertaking process of delimitation are statutory in nature and therefore, required to be followed strictly?

¶1150

4. Whether the petitioners have locus to maintain the writ petition challenging the delimitation notification?

¶1151

5. Whether the State Government is under obligation to decide the objections submitted by the petitioners regarding the proposed delimitation while adhering to the principles of audi alteram partem ?

¶1152

6. Whether the writ petitions challenging the validity of delimitation notifications issued under Section 101 of the Act of 1994 and Section 3 of the Act of 2009 are

(59 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

sustainable in view of the grounds raised therein?

¶1157

Having considered the rival submissions, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned Advocate General. The term “in prescribed manner” used under Section 101(1) read with Section 2(xix) as well as Section 102 of the Act of 1994 clearly provides that for the purpose of infusing statutory force to any order or guidelines under the Act of 1994, the same must be laid down by way of rules made in accordance with the Act and notified in the Official Gazette. The guidelines relied upon by the petitioners have not undergone such statutory process. They are neither framed under any rule-making power nor published as rules in the Gazette, and hence, they cannot be regarded as possessing statutory character.

¶1158

Accordingly, the Court holds that the guidelines in question are purely administrative in nature, intended only to facilitate internal procedural compliance, lacking statutory force and thus, not enforceable under the law. Mere nonadherence of the guiding principle cannot be a valid ground to question the final delimitation notification.

¶1159

The conclusion emerges from the discussions made above, can be summed up as under :- i) The power of the Government in issuing delimitation notifications is in the nature of conditional legislation. ii) The scope of interference by the Constitutional Court in the matters of delimitation is limited to the scope of judicial review and the same can only be exercised in rarest of rare cases on establishment of proof of manifest arbitrariness or the decision being irreconcilable to the Constitutional values. iii) The guidelines issued along with the notices for delimitation are not statutory in nature and thus, are not enforceable in law. iv) The final delimitation notifications once issued, cannot be interfered with merely on the ground of non-adherence of the guidelines relating to population / distance criteria alone, where the decision has been taken after holistic consideration of various factors as per the constitutional scheme. v) The writ petitions challenging the delimitation notifications cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of locus standi of the petitioners.

(60 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

vi) The authorities considering the objections / suggestions received in pursuance of the notices of delimitation, are not required to act as a judicial / quasi-judicial authority to decide each objections with reasoned order. vii) The principle of audi alteram partem is not applicable in the cases of delimitation.

¶1164

viii) In view of the discussions made above, with regard to different grounds raised by the petitioners in different writ petitions, as adjudicated above, no case for interference in the present bunch of writ petitions challenging the final notifications of delimitation issued under Section 3 of the Act of 2009 or under Section 101 of the Act of 1994, is made out.

¶1165

A large bunch of writ petitions was filed challenging the process so undertaken in pursuance of notification dated 10.01.2025 and also the proposals made in pursuance thereof. The challenge has been made on various common grounds including non-adherence of the guidelines issued along with the notice, alleged problems to be faced by the villagers, non-consideration of the objections submitted by the villagers or arbitrary exercise of powers on political considerations.

¶1166

As discussed in the earlier part of this Judgment, the process of delimitation is in the nature of conditional legislation and the authority undertaking the same i.e. three Members High Level Committee in the present case, is not supposed to act as a judicial or quasi-judicial authority. Similarly, the representations made by the villagers are only in the form of the suggestions and there is no statutory requirement to adjudicate the objections and decide each such objections with reasoned order. As held above, the recommendations made or decision taken by the committee are not amenable to writ jurisdiction except within the limited scope of judicial review. Therefore, the directions contained in para 7 and 8 of the order dated 23.05.2025 cannot be allowed to sustain.

¶1167

However, it is expected from the State Government to comply with the statement made before the learned Single Judge as recorded in Para 2 and 3 of the said order.

¶1168

We have also considered D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.9199/2025 (Sanwar Mal Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.),

(61 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

wherein the petitioners have alleged that the District Collector, Sikar, while forwarding the final proposal to the State Government, failed to include the name of Reengus as a new Panchayat Samiti and confined the recommendation only to the reconstitution of Khandela Panchayat Samiti, thereby ignoring the proposal made by the Block Development Officer and the representations submitted by several Gram Panchayats.

¶1173

Per contra, learned Advocate General submitted that the delimitation exercise is undertaken strictly in accordance with law and after due consideration of all relevant factors. It was contended that the proposal for creation of Reengus Panchayat Samiti did not satisfy the criteria of population and administrative viability as per the prescribed norms, and therefore, was not recommended. It was further argued that the matter falls within the realm of administrative discretion, and unless malafide or manifest arbitrariness is shown, judicial interference is unwarranted. It is further argued that even otherwise, the process of consideration for reconstituting the Panchayat Samiti is still not finalized, therefore, no interference at this stage is called for.

¶1174

As held above, the interference of this Court at this premature stage is not called for. The disputes as raised in the writ petition regarding adequacy and viability of creation of Reengus as a Panchayat Samiti cannot be decided by this Court. As directed above, all the pending proposals regarding delimitation shall be considered by the High Level Committee.

¶1175

Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the guidelines issued by the State on 10.01.2025 and 13.02.2025 have been disregarded. It was submitted that these guidelines mandate that headquarters of a newly created Gram Panchayat should, as far as possible, be established in a village with adequate means of transportation to ensure convenient access for all residents of the Gram Panchayat concerned. It was further contended that the designated village must have government offices and other essential facilities, including a School, Panchayat Bhawan, Anganwadi Center, Patwar Bhawan and Kisan Seva Sadan, for which sufficient land ought to be available. However, it is submitted that in the present matter, the prescribed 6 km distance parameter and other foundational guidelines for

(62 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

delimitation have been violated. The petitioners assert that there was no administrative necessity to conduct the current delimitation exercise, rendering it arbitrary.

¶1180

Accordingly, this Court holds that nonobservance or deviation from the guidelines does not vitiate impugned delimitation process or the determination of the Gram Panchayat headquarters. The petitioners, therefore, fail to establish any illegality or procedural infirmity warranting interference in the exercise of powers of judicial review.

¶1181

224.1 In view of the adjudication made and conclusion drawn in Part-A of the judgment, the writ petitions challenging the final notifications issued under Section 3 of the Act of 2009 as well as Section 101 of the Act of 1994, are dismissed. 224.2 In view of the adjudication made and conclusion drawn in Part-B of the judgment, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.831/2025 (State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Dhanna Ram and Ors.) and other special appeals challenging the interim order dated 23.05.2025 to the extent of Para 7 & 8 of the same, are allowed.

¶1182

All the writ petitions challenging the process of delimitation initiated in pursuance of the notices issued under Section 101 of the Act of 1994, are dismissed.

¶1183

It is directed that the concerned District Collectors shall send the proposal for delimitation to the state Government and the three members high-level committee constituted for the purpose of examining the same, shall take final decision upon the proposals for delimitation so sent by the concerned District Collectors in an objective manner. The State Government shall complete the entire exercise of delimitation on or before 31.12.2025.

¶1184

224.3 In view of the adjudication made and conclusion drawn in Part-C of the judgment, the writ petitions challenging the process of delimitation/change of boundaries of the municipal wards in absence of change of census or change in the number of wards or change in the territorial boundaries of the municipality, are allowed. The respondents are directed not to effect any change in the internal boundaries of the municipal wards in such cases.

¶1185

Consequently, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1005/2025 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs

(63 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Narayan Singh Solanki & Ors.) filed for challenging the interim order dated 11.06.2025, is hereby dismissed.

¶1190

224.4 In view of the adjudication made and conclusion drawn in Part-D of the judgment, the writ petitions challenging removal of Panchayat Samiti Member / Pradhan, on account of delimitation of respective areas / wards, are hereby dismissed.

¶1191

224.5 In view of the adjudication made and conclusion drawn in Part-E of the judgment, the writ petitions relating to appointment of the administrator, are dismissed.

¶1192

224.6 In view of the adjudication made and conclusion drawn in Part-F of the judgment, the writ petitions praying for fixing/nominating the village headquarter are dismissed.

¶1193

224.7 In view of the adjudication made and conclusion drawn in Part-G of the judgment, D. B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.4686/2025 [Sanyam Lodha Vs. State of Rajasthan] as well as D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1285/2025 (Giriraj Singh Devanda vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.) praying for a direction for holding the elections of Municipality or Panchayati Raj Institutions, respectively, are disposed of with a direction to the State Government that after completing the delimitation exercise, elections of all the Local Self Bodies i.e. Panchayats as well as Municipality, shall immediately be conducted simultaneously and the entire exercise for such elections shall be completed on or before 15.04.2026.

¶1194

224.8 To promote the spirit of ‘Save Paper – Save Environment’, the Registry of this Court is directed that, while placing a copy of this judgment in concerned files as well as while processing applications for issuance of certified copies of this judgment pertaining to any specific writ petition or special appeal, it shall issue a certified copy comprising the first page of the judgment, the relevant page showing the cause title of the respective writ petition/special appeal, and the full text of the judgment beginning from Page No.288 of this judgment.

¶1195

224.9 Stay applications and all pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(64 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

224.10 A copy of this judgment shall be kept in each connected file.

¶1200

He further submits that the aforesaid judgment came to be challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of

¶1201

Villagers of Revenue Village Singhaniya & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.34/2026) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP on 05.01.2026 passed the following order:-

¶1202

“ 1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. K.M. Natraj, learned ASG on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and other official respondents.

¶1203

In our considered opinion, no case to interfere with the administrative exercise of delimitation undertaken by the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of reconstitution of Gram Panchayat, is made out. Furthermore, we find that the High Court has thoroughly examined all the factual and legal aspects, and no infringement of any constitutional or legally vested right has been identified. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶1204

It goes without saying that if the Gram Panchayat faces any difficulty in its management or in providing services to the village residents, it will be at liberty to approach the competent authority to shift its headquarters.

¶1205

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

¶1206

He further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sanyam Lodha Vs. State of

¶1207

Rajasthan (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 36874/2025) decided on 19.12.2025, wherein it has been held as under:-

¶1208

We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.M. Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General has also entered appearance on behalf of the State of Rajasthan.

(65 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

In view of the fact that the delimitation exercise is near completion and the High Court has already issued a positive direction to conclude the elections by 15.04.2026, we see no reason to entertain this special leave petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶1213

However, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a genuine apprehension that the elections are likely to be further postponed. On this, Mr. K.M. Natraj states that, as per his instructions, the State Government is committed to conclude the elections by 15.04.2026.

¶1214

In the event of any delay due to some unforeseen circumstances, the parties, for that limited purpose, may approach the High Court.

¶1215

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.”

¶1216

He further submits that the notification dated 28.12.2025, which has been challenged in the present writ petitions has also been challenged before the Coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.538/2026 titled as Ratan Lal Palsaniya & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., and the said writ petition has been dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.01.2026, which read as under:-

¶1217

Heard.

¶1218

2. The prayer made in this petition is as follows:

¶1219

“I. Issue an appropriate order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 28.12.2025 bearing No. एफ . 15 (36) / पु�नर्ग�ठन / वि�धि� / पु�रा� / 2024/891, issued by the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, to the limited extent it separates Gram Panchayat Chandeli ka Bas- Puniyana from Panchayat Samiti Dantaramgarh and includes it in the newly Constituted Panchayat Samiti Khachariyawas, District Sikar.

¶1220

II. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents to retain/restore Gram Panchayat Chandeli ka Bas - Puniyana within the jurisdiction of Panchayat Samiti Dantaramgarh, District

(66 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

Sikar, in accordance with law and keeping in view contiguity, distance and administrative convenience.

¶1225

III. In the alternative, issue an appropriate order or direction directing the Respondents to reconsider the placement of Gram Panchayat Chandeli ka Bas - Puniyana after affording due opportunity of hearing to the residents of the concerned Gram Panchayat and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a time-bound period.

¶1226

IV. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶1227

Considering the aspects raised in this petition, we notice that in the judgment dated 14.11.2025 passed in the case of Sheela Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7718/2025) and other connected matters, this Court has upheld the power of the State Government in conducting the exercise relating to the delimitation aspect and the involvement of the people of the concerned village has also been discussed at length. We have been informed that the said judgment stands upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Villagers of Revenue Village Singhaniya & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.34/2026] vide order dated 05.01.2026.

¶1228

In view thereto, the issue raised in this petition need not be again examined by this Court and the writ petition stands disposed of in the same terms as Sheela Kumari (supra).

¶1229

We have already held that if any representation is made, the same shall be considered and examined by the authorities.”

¶1230

He further submits that prior to issuance of notifications dated 20.11.2025 as well as 28.12.2025 proper procedure as prescribed under the Act of 1994 has been followed and the proposals sent by the Collectors and SDMs were considered by the Committee constituted by the State Government and only after considering the proposals and representations received by them, the notification dated 20.11.2025 has been issued. He further submits that the notification dated 28.12.2025 was issued in

(67 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

furtherance of earlier notification dated 20.11.2025 to correct the clerical errors as well as to consider the representations in a meaningful manner. He further submits that the petitioners have no legal or vested right to challenge the impugned notifications and the headquarter of village panchayat has been changed under the administrative exigency for better functioning of the grampanchayats. He further submits that the notifications have been issued by the respondents just to conclude the process of election as directed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and in furtherance thereto the State Government is duty bound to conclude the elections by 15.04.2026 as an undertaking in this regard has been given by them before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Saiyam Lodha (supra) and lastly prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.

¶1235

We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶1236

These writ petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners deserve to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly the issue raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions has been thoroughly considered and decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Sheela Kumari (supra), wherein specific questions were framed and answered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court which have again been raised by the petitioners in the present writ petitions and therefore, the same require no interference; secondly the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court has been further upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Villagers of Revenue village Singhania and another (supra); thirdly

(68 of 68)

[2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB]

[CW-988/2026]

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Villagers of Revenue village Singhania and another (supra) has considered the fact that there is no infringement of any constitutional or legally vested right of the petitioners and on that ground the SLP was dismissed and granted liberty to the Gram Panchayat that in case of any difficulty in its management or in providing services to the village residents, the Gram Panchayats will be at liberty to approach the competent authorities to shift the headquarter; fourthly the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Ratan Lal (supra), wherein the same issue was under challenge, the said PIL petition was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.01.2026 considering the judgment in the matter of Sheela Kumari and villagers of Singhania (both supra); lastly since the matter relates to holding the elections of Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishad which has already been delayed for about one year, we are not inclined to disturb the process of election which is under progress and the State Government has to hold the elections upto 15.04.2026 in terms of the undertaking given by them before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 19. In view of the above, no case is made out in favour of the petitioners, hence these writ petitions stand dismissed. Copy of this order be separately placed in each connected file.

¶1241

(RAVI CHIRANIA),J

¶1242

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶1243

MG/48-134,5,6,7 (Except item No.56 & 80)

Shushila Devi W/O Babulal Achara v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shushila Devi W/O Babulal Achara v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuanwarpal Son of Kishan Swaroop Vs the Rajasthan High Court

Ramesh Kumar S/O Sukhpal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Badri Narayan Jat S/O Mangi Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Maharaj Singh S/O Sh. Hakam Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Satyanarayan S/O. Rajaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Mourya Son of Shri Amar Chand Vs State of Rajasthan