Dismissed

Kedar S/O Harinarayan Meena v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Jan 2026CW/20345/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by land encroachers seeking protection against eviction and allotment of housing plots under a state policy for nomadic communities. The Court held that the petitioners were not part of the notified nomadic communities and that encroachers on government land have no right to rehabilitation. The petition was dismissed as personal interest litigation.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/-

Kedar S/O Harinarayan Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:74-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No. 20345/2025

¶4

Kedar S/o Harinarayan Meena, Aged About 69 Years, R/o - Jamoolkheda, Chharoda, Kundera, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan -322029. [Aadhaar No.: 5187 1908 0199]

¶5

Harinarayan S/o Kesara Meena, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Jamoolkheda, Chharoda, Kundera, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan -322029. [Aadhaar No.: 3498 8419 7434]

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Urban Development And Housing (UDH) Add: Food Building Secretariat, Jaipur - 302005

¶9

The Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan- 322001

¶10

The District Collector, District- Sawai Madhopur Add: Jatwara, Sawai Madhopur- 322001

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tushar Tank For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.M. Sharma, AAAG with Mr. Karni Singh Sandhu.

¶13

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

¶14

Judgment

¶15

06/01/2026

¶16

This petition has been preferred by Kedar Meena and Harinarayan Meena (aged about 69 and 75 years) claiming that grave and irreparable injury to the fundamental rights of families belonging to Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, Ghumantu, Ardh-Ghumantu and Vimukt Jati communities have been caused on account of the action of the respondents.

[2026:RJ-JP:74-DB]

[CW-20345/2025]

(2 of 5)

It is stated that the concerned communities have been residing for decades upon Khasra Nos. 1297, 1304, 1306 and 1308 of Village Jamoolkheda, District Sawai Madhopur. The Urban Improvement Trust (UIT) Sawai Madhopur had issued eviction notices under Section 92-A of The Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Amendment) Act, 1991 followed by an auction of the land.

¶21

It is stated that the land is commercially exploited, whereas the petitioners have been residing on the said land. It is further stated that as per the Government Policy dated 05.03.2019, the members of the SC, ST Community are entitled for allotment of 50 square yard residential plots for their shelter and livelihood and if the respondents seeks to dispossess the petitioners, they should make available alternate land for rehabilitation in terms of the said policy.

¶22

Learned counsel has also relied on an order passed by this Court on 08.12.2015 in the case of Bhairu Ram Banjara versus The State of Rajasthan and Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 18064/2015) , wherein the Court passed the following order:-

¶23

“We require the petitioner to approach the Commissioner Jaipur Development Authority and produce before him the specific details of Colonies with reference to the individuals which prima-facie prove that they belong to Gadia Lohar/Banjaras/Nomadic Tribes and for how long they are residing in such hutments/kachchi basties, who may consider thier claim for allotment of plot of 50 Sq. Yards in terms of the State Policy dt.05/02/2015, preferably before dispossessing such persons.

¶24

With the aforesaid directions/observations, the present writ petition (PIL) is disposed of.”

[2026:RJ-JP:74-DB]

[CW-20345/2025]

(3 of 5)

We have considered the submissions.

¶29

At the outset, we find that so far as the petitioners are concerned, they belong to the community which does not fall within the four corners of Ghumantu, Ardh-Ghumantu and Vimukt Jati communities. Meenas cannot be said to be nomads. A report (dated 30^th June, 2008) of The National Commission for Denotified,

¶30

Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes had defined a Nomad as:-

¶31

“Against this background, a nomad may be defined as ‘one who is constantly on spatial movement.’ A group (or society) of constantly moving (or migrating) people is nomadic, and the lifestyle and symbolic system the nomads have is known as nomadism. Here, people eke out their livelihood by migrating from one site to another within a specific territorial zone. The fact that people move should not be interpreted as meaning that they journey from one ecozone to another, or, to put in empirical terms, the nomads from the Himalayas travel to central India. As a lifestyle, nomadism is always adapted to a habitat. Nomads have a specialized knowledge of an area, and their economy is suited to that. Nomads as journeyers in a habitat; they process the resources that they find there.”

¶32

Filing of petition or representation capacity can be from a person belonging to the same tribe or community.

¶33

So far as the policy of 05.03.2019 is concerned, the same is in relation to nomad communities where the Government has attempted to settle such communities by providing them free of cost 50 square yard in residential plots.

¶34

We notice that so far as the present case is concerned, it appears to be a personal interest litigation raised by the petitioners who seem to have trespassed and illegally taken possession of Charagah land and claimed their rights on the basis of long standing occupation. They are clearly a set of rank

[2026:RJ-JP:74-DB]

[CW-20345/2025]

(4 of 5)

encroachers in Government properties and need to be immediately removed and dispossessed. The notice issued by the UIT from time to time reflects that several times the petitioners and the persons who have illegally occupied the properties were asked to leave and vacate the premises but they have refused to do so. The right of rehabilitation to such rank encroachers does not lie in law.

¶39

In the case of “ The State of Haryana & Ors versus Sushila & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 9205 of 2022) ” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶40

“From the aforesaid it can be seen that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellants that the possession of the land in question was taken over and handed over to the beneficiary on 04.08.2006. It was also the case on behalf of the appellant that the petitioners are encroachers in the acquired land and compensation of the acquired land was not paid to them because they were not co-owners at the time of award. The aforesaid has not at all been considered by the High Court while passing the impugned judgement and order. As the possession was taken over by the acquiring body and was handed over to the beneficiary, any possession by the petitioners thereafter can be said to be encroachment and the encroachers cannot be permitted to take the benefit of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 and pray that as now they are in possession, may be as encroachers, they are entitled to relief under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. It would be giving a premium to the illegality and the encroachers which cannot be the intention of the legislature.”

[2026:RJ-JP:74-DB]

[CW-20345/2025]

(5 of 5)

In the context of encroachment of Government properties, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Shakarpur Slum Union

¶45

versus DDA and Ors. (W.P.(C) 6779/2021)" held as under:-

¶46

"Encroachment on government land cannot be said to be a fundamental right of any person and a person encroaching upon government land cannot claim that he is entitled to rehabilitation as a matter of right even in the absence of any policy bestowing the benefit of rehabilitation and relocation on the said person."

¶47

Considering that the encroachment itself is an illegality the claim of Right to Equality and Right to Livelihood would not be available to such rank encroachers who seek to take away a rightful claim of a person who has legally claimed occupation, we find that this petition is not only a personal interest litigation but is a mischievous attempt to continue in possession with the Government Charagah land.

¶48

The writ petition designed as personal interest litigation is therefore dismissed with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to be recovered from the concerned petitioners as arrears of land revenue.

¶49

All pending application(s) stand disposed of.

¶50

(SANGEETA SHARMA),J

¶51

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ

¶52

KAVISH /1

Kedar S/O Harinarayan Meena v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kedar S/O Harinarayan Meena v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaipur National University Vs State of Rajasthan

Nims University Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S. Ummed Engineering and Construction Vs the State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Devendra Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma

State of Rajasthan Vs Devendra Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma

The State of Rajasthan Vs Ms/ Braham Prakash Modi