Dismissed¶¶24

Shanti Devi Wife of Chagan v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Jan 2026CW/20587/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Shanti Devi (wife of Chagan, aged 91, resident of Hanutiya, Tehsil Shahapura, Jaipur) v. State of Rajasthan, District Collector & Chairman Public Land Protection Cell Jaipur, Tehsildar Shahapura, Patwari Hanutiya, and Balu son of Shri Ranjita — PIL dismissed as personal interest litigation; encroachment on petitioner's own land; remedy directed to the Tenancy Act, 1955; cost of Rs. 50,000 imposed; [CW-20587/2025]; [2026:RJ-JP:787-DB]; decided 09/01/2026 by Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sangeeta Sharma.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner, being aged 91 years, could not have been said to be a person who would have been peeling the land. ¶¶18

Shanti Devi Wife of Chagan Vs the State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:787-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No. 20587/2025

¶4

Shanti Devi Wife Of Chagan, Aged About 91 Years, Resident Of Hanutiya, Tehsil Shahapura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

The District Collector, Jaipur And Chairman, Public Land Protection Cell, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶9

Tehsildar, Tehsil Shahapura, District Jaipur. 4. Patwari, Village Hanutiya, Tehsil Shahapura, District Jaipur.

¶10

Balu Son Of Shri Ranjita, Resident Of Hanutiya, Tehsil Shahapura, Dist. Jaipur (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Prahalad Sharma with Lakhan Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	G.S. Gill, AAG assisted by
	Mr.	S.P. Singh Rajawat,Asstt.G.C.

¶13

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

¶14

Order

¶15

09/01/2026

¶16

Heard.

¶17

The petitioner has preferred this petition, who has stated herself to be farmer residing in Village Hanutiya, Tehsil Shahapura, District Jaipur.

¶18

We notice that the petitioner is aged 91 years old and therefore could not have been said to be a person, who would have been peeling the land. It is apparent that the petition has

(2 of 2)

[2026:RJ-JP:787-DB]

[CW-20587/2025]

been filed in the nature of public interest, but it is actually a personal interest litigation, as learned counsel for the petitioner states that she owns the land where the encroachment is being done.

¶23

The remedies are available under the Tenancy Act, 1955 for the purpose claimed.

¶24

The PIL is misconceived, therefore, the same is dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/-.

¶25

(SANGEETA SHARMA),J

¶26

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA), ACTING CJ

¶27

RAJAT/20

Shanti Devi Wife of Chagan v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti Devi Wife of Chagan v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Raj. Vs Dhanveer Bhandari and Ors.

Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs M/S Karam Bhoomi Estates

Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs Jagdish Prasad Mittal S/O Late Shri Ram Gulab Mittal

Gajanand Sharma S/O Sh. Bhairu Ram Sharma Vs Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court

Director, College Education Vs Managing Committee, Smt. Sona Devi Sethia (Girls) P.G. College

Director, College Education Vs Managing Committee, Smt. Sona Devi Sethia (Girls) P.G.College, Sujangarh