Dismissed¶¶44

Smt. Maya Devi W/O Shri Om Singh Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Mar 2026CW/2850/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL dismissed - removal of encroachments sought over khasra 972 & 1113/973 (Village Makdawa) and khasra 713/27 (Village Matalwas), Tehsil Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara; abadi regularization under S. 102-A Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956; notices under S. 45-48 Rajasthan Special Investment Regions Act 2016 and S. 90, 92 Urban Improvement Act 1959; Bhiwadi Integrated Vikas Pradhikaran (BIDA); pattas issued by Panchayat; gair-mumkin abadi; Jagdish Prasad Meena v. State of Rajasthan; Public Land Protection Cell; Maya Devi v. State of Rajasthan.

What did the court decide?

The present PIL petition is without any basis and the relief claimed in the PIL cannot be granted. ¶¶43

Smt. Maya Devi W/O Shri Om Singh Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents No. 1 to 4 should be directed to remove the encroachments over khasra numbers 972 and 1113/973 of Village Makdawa and khasra No. 713/27 of Village Matalwas, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara, and whether respondents No. 5 to 11 should be restrained from encroaching thereon during the pendency of the petition. +1 more

¶¶29

Court's answer

The present PIL petition is without any basis and the relief claimed in the PIL cannot be granted.

¶¶43

Ratio / Principle

The relief cannot be granted, more so because the land falls in Abadi area, where people are residing.

¶¶43

Key takeaways

The present writ petition is dismissed.ratio¶¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2850/2025 (PIL), High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench (Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu), decided 16/03/2026. Petitioner Smt. Maya Devi sought directions to respondents 1-4 (State of Rajasthan, District Collector and Tehsildar, Khairthal-Tijara) to remove alleged encroachments over khasra nos. 972 and 1113/973 of Village Makdawa and khasra no. 713/27 of Village Matalwas, Tehsil Kotkasim, and interim restraint on respondents 5-11 during pendency, citing inaction on her representations and inaction by the Public Land Protection Cell after referral in Jagdish Prasad Meena & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. In reply, the Collector and Tehsildar stated temporary encroachments stood removed and notices had been issued under Sections 45, 46, 47 and 48 of the Rajasthan Special Investment Regions Act, 2016 and Sections 90 and 92 of the Urban Improvement Act 1959; BIDA, Bhiwadi disclaimed control over khasra nos. 972 and 1113/973. A District Collector order dated 26.11.2025 showed a proposal to the SDO for extension of the Abadi land to regularize plots in khasra nos. 972 and 1113/973 under Section 102-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act of 1956, with alternate accommodation to be provided; counsel contended the land is gair-mumkin abadi with pattas already issued by the Panchayat. Held: the PIL is without any basis and the relief claimed cannot be granted, more so as the land falls in Abadi area where people are residing; writ petition dismissed.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:10893-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2850/2025

¶4

Smt. Maya Devi W/o Shri Om Singh Yadav, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village And Post Matalwas, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary To Department Of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

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

¶9

District Collector, District Khairthal-Tijara (Raj.) 4. Tehsildar, Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara (Raj.) 5. Savita Devi W/o Vinod, R/o Village Makdawa, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara.

¶10

Vinod S/o Omprakash, R/o Village Makdawa, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara.

¶11

Suresh S/o Omprakash, R/o Village Makdawa, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara.

¶12

Om Prakash S/o Shri Chhitar, R/o Village Makdawa, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara.

¶13

Kamla Devi W/o Om Prakash, R/o Village Makdawa, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara.

¶14

Ramkawar S/o Hukma, R/o Village And Post Matalwas, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara.

¶15

Hoshiyar S/o Hukma, R/o Village And Post Matalwas, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara.

¶16

Bhiwadi Integrated Vikas Pradhikaran, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Bhiwadi, District Khairthal-Tijara.

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ishwar Jain For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shikha Sharma for Mr. GS Gill, AAG Mr. Prateek Saxena with Ms. Divya Rathore Ms. Anshul Ranga for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG

¶19

(2 of 4)

¶20

[2026:RJ-JP:10893-DB]

¶21

[CW-2850/2025]

¶22

Mr. Dev Kumar Mr. Pallav Choudhary for Mr. Paras Choudhary Mr. Hari Prashad Jangid Ms. Nisha Singh Mr. Sudarshan Singh Yadav Mr. Vikram Yadav

¶23

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

¶24

Order

¶25

16/03/2026

¶26

This petition has been preferred by the petitioner, wherein it has been stated that there are permanent encroachments in village Makdawa, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Khairthal, which need to be removed. It is stated that the petitioner had filed several representations to the competent authority for removal of the encroachments, however no heed was paid.

¶27

In another writ petition, Jagdish Prasad Meena & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors., the case was sent to the Public Land Protection Cell, however as nothing has been done in this regard, the petitioner therefore prayed as under :-

¶28

"It is, therefore, by submitting writ petition it is humbly prayed that the writ petition of the this petitioner may kindly be accepted and allowed and:-

¶29

(a) respondent No. 1 to 4 may kindly be directed to remove the encroachment over the khasra number 972, 1113/973 of Village Makdawa, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara over and the khasra No. 713/27 of Village Matalwas, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara.

¶30

(b) Any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest facts and of justice in the circumstances of thecase in favour of the petitioner may kindly be passed. 11. Interim Relief:

¶31

The respondent No. 5 to 11 may kindly be restrained from the encroachment over the khasra number 972, 1113/973 of Village Makdawa, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara and over the khasra No. 713/27 Village Matalwas, Tehsil Kotkasim, District of Khairthal-Tijara during pendency of the petition. 12. Caveat:

¶32

[2026:RJ-JP:10893-DB]

¶33

[CW-2850/2025]

¶34

(3 of 4)

¶35

That no notice has been received of lodging a caveat by the opposite party."

¶36

In response, the Collector and the Tehsildar have filed their replies stating that there were temporary encroachments, which have been removed and permanent encroachments are also there, in which, notices have been issued to the concerned persons under Section 45, 46, 47 and 48 of the Rajasthan Special Investment Regions Act, 2016 and Section 90 and 92 of the Urban Improvement Act 1959 to remove the encroachments. The BIDA, Bhiwadi does not hold the control of Khasra No.972 and 1113/973 and would not be competent to take action in regard to any encroachments in that area.

¶37

Applications have been filed by the concerned persons, who are residing in the said Khasras and an order of the District Collector dated 26.11.2025 has been placed before us, which reflects that the District Collector has sent a proposal to the SDO for extension of the Abadi land for regularizing the plots in Khasra Nos.972 and 1113/973, which is in Abadi land. The action is to be taken under Section 102-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act of 1956.

¶38

At the same time, it has also been directed by the District Collector to provide alternate places for accommodation of the persons, who are residing in the said Khasra No.972 and Khasra No.1113/973.

¶39

Learned counsel submitted that the land is in gair-mumkin abadi area and therefore, it cannot be said that there is any encroachment on the said land as the houses have been made and they need to be regularized since the concerned Panchayat has already issued pattas.

¶40

(4 of 4)

¶41

[2026:RJ-JP:10893-DB]

¶42

[CW-2850/2025]

¶43

Considering the aforesaid aspects, we find that the present PIL petition is without any basis and the relief claimed in the PIL cannot be granted. Moreso, as the land falls in Abadi area, where people are residing.

¶44

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.

¶45

(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ

¶46

deep/23

Smt. Maya Devi W/O Shri Om Singh Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Maya Devi W/O Shri Om Singh Yadav 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

Dr. Pooran Lal S/O Shri Sukhdev Prasad, Vs Shri Bhawani Singh Detha

State Bank of India Vs Babu Lal Meena Son of (Late) Shri Panchuram Meena

Hem Singh Rajput, S/O. Late Shri Ganga Singh Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan

Prabhati Lal S/O Shri Kalyan Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan

Manisha W/O Bhim Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Suresh Chand Jat S/O Shri Ram Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan