BENCH AT JAIPUR v. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department

Judgment

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

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

4. District Collector, District Kherthal-Tijara (Raj.) 301404 Sub-Divisional Officer, Tijara District Kherthal-Tijara. ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (2 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 399/2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

323022. ----Petitioners Versus

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

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

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

4. Director Cum Special Secretary, Local Self Department, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Line Crossing, Jaipur - 302016. District Collector, District Bundi, Rajasthan. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bundi, Rajasthan.

6. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18406/2025 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] (3 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Versus ----Petitioner

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. District Collector, Tonk Rajasthan. Chief Executive Officer Zila Parishad, Tonk Sub Divisional Magistrate, Niwai, District Tonk.

4. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18846/2025 Niroti Lal S/o Chhote Lal, Aged About 73 Years, R/o Village Dumriya, Bharatpur, Rajasthan - 321405 ----Respondents Versus ----Petitioner

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

2. The District Collector, Office Of District Collector, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19336/2025 Ridhmal Singh S/o Chimna Ram, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Swami Ki Dhani, Tan Chachiwad Bada, Tehsil Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar. Versus ----Petitioner

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

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

4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sikar, Rajasthan Additional District Election Officer (Additional District Collector), Sikar ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (4 of 68) [CW-988/2026] D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19482/2025 Munna Lal S/o Shri Babu Lal, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Chittora, Tehsil Saipau, District Dholpur, Rajasthan Versus ----Petitioner

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

3. Secretariat, Jaipur District Collector, Dholpur Rajasthan Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dholpur Rajasthan ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20524/2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. District Collector, Karauli, District Karauli (Raj.) Sub Divisional Officer, Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj.) Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Hindaun City, [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (5 of 68) [CW-988/2026] District Karauli (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20656/2025 Jangsher Kha S/o Shri Jiwan Kha, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Pathano Ka Mohalla Azamnagar, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. Versus ----Petitioner

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

3. Secretariat, Jaipur. District Collector, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 320/2026

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

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

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

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

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

5. District Collector, District Bharatpur, (Rajasthan). Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Bayana, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 352/2026 ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (6 of 68) [CW-988/2026]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Ajeetgarh, District Sikar ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 357/2026

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

2. Kishorilal Son Of Mannulal, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Village Tamolipura, District Karauli. ----Petitioners Versus

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

2. District Collector, Karauli. [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (7 of 68) [CW-988/2026]

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Karauli. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 433/2026

1. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Shri Madhopur, District Sikar ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 437/2026

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

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

3. Samay Singh S/o Khilona, Aged About 66 Years, Resident [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (8 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Of Village Samaspur, Tehsil And District Dausa.

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

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

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

3. The District Collector, Dausa, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 447/2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. District Collector, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Raj.) Sub Divisional Officer, Bhusawar District Bharatpur (Raj.) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 586/2026

1. Meghram Gurjar S/o Shri Kundan Gurjar, Aged About 56 ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (9 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Years, R/o Village Adihudpura, Post Rondkalan, Panchayat Samiti Karauli, Tehsil Karauli, District Karauli

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

3. 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

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

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

6. Secretariat, Jaipur District Collector, Karauli Rajasthan Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Karauli Rajasthan ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 662/2026 Bacchu Singh, Aged About 68 Years, S/o Badan Singh Gokul Ram, Aged About 70 Years, S/o Tejaram Sumer Singh, Aged About 53 Years, S/o Shri Ramswaroop Balveer Gurjar, Aged About 57 Years, S/o Prasadilal Kirodi, Aged About 68 Years, S/o Hukmaram Ji Motiram S/o Mohar Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Ondgurjar, Tehsil Mahewa, District Dausa Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus

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

2. District Collector, Dausa Rajasthan [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (10 of 68) [CW-988/2026]

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dausa Rajasthan ----Respondents

5. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 813/2026 Gumansingh, Aged About 46 Years, S/o Mangilalji Sayed Khan, Aged About 47 Years, S/o Wahid Khan Parwat Singh, Aged About 75 Years, S/o Ramsingh Lakhansingh, Aged About 26 Years, S/o Banney Singh Pratap Meghwal S/o Baluji, Aged About 61 Years, All Residents Of Village Khejdiya, Gram Panchayat, Daata, Tehsil Pidawa, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

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

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

2. Deputy Commissioner And Deputy Secretary (First), Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj Department), Government Of Rajasthan,

4. Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur- 302026. District Collector, Jhalawar (Raj.)- 326001. Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub- Division, Pidawa, District Jhalawar- 326034. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 819/2026

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

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

3. Prithvisingh S/o. Shri Ratanlal Ji, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village Aminpur/aminpura, Gram Panchayat Govindpura, District Jhalawar (Raj.) [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (11 of 68) [CW-988/2026]

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

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

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

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

2. Deputy Commissioner And Deputy Secretary (First), Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj Department), Government Of Rajasthan,

4. Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur- 302026. District Collector, Jhalawar (Raj.)- 326001. Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub- Division, Pidawa, District Jhalawar- 326034. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 847/2026

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

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

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

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

5. Chimoli Saini S/o Shri Ram Singh, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Village Sendhli, Tehsil Bhusawar, District [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (12 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

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

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

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

3. The Collector, Bharatpur, Collectorate, Bharatpur. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bhusawar, District Bharatpur. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 895/2026 Rameshwar Prasad Saini S/o Shri Mishri Lal Saini, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Lakhni Wala Dhani, Piplai, District Sawaimadhopur. ----Respondents Versus ----Petitioner

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

3. District Collector, Sawaimadhopur Rajasthan. Chief Executive Officer Zila Parishad, Sawaimadhopur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 972/2026

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

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

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Dy. Secretary [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (13 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Administration (First), Village Development And Panchayatiraj Department (Panchayatiraj), Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

4. District Collector, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Raj.) Sub Divisional Officer, Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj.) Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj.) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 991/2026 Mansingh S/o Shri Vedariya, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Surothi, Bijoli, Dholpur Rajasthan ----Respondents Versus ----Petitioner

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayat Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. District Collector, Dholpur Rajasthan Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dholpur.

3. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1009/2026 Bhairu Singh S/o Ranmal Singh, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Near Gadh, Village Shankar Pura, Post Chakwada, Tehsil Phagi, Distt. Jaipur. Versus ----Petitioner

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

3. Secretariat, Jaipur. District Collector, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1015/2026

1. Mahesh Chand S/o Shri Suresh Chand, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Jatav Basti, Dhandawali, Tehsil Hindaun [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (14 of 68) [CW-988/2026] District Karauli

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. 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.)

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

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

14. Purushotam Lal Sharma S/o Shri Jiya Lal, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Vijaipura, Tehsil Suroth, District Karauli ----Petitioners Versus [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (15 of 68) [CW-988/2026]

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

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

6. Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur Division, B Haratpur District Collector And District Magistrate, Karauli Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Karauli Sub-Divisional Officer, Hindaun City District Karauli ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1026/2026

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

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

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

4. Batto Devi W/o Shri Bheem Singh, Resident Of Gram Panchayat Mothuka, Tehsil Bansoor, District Kotputli- Behror (Rajasthan)

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

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

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

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (16 of 68) [CW-988/2026]

2. District Collector, Kotputli-Behror ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1057/2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Commissioner And Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur Division, Jaipur District Collector, Alwar Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Alwar Sub-Divisional Officer, Kathumar District Alwar

6. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1220/2026

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

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

3. Nandlal Gaur S/o Mohan Lal Gaur, R/o Ward No.9, Near Devnarain Mandir, Ballabhpura, Tehsil Digod, District [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (17 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Kota. ----Petitioners Versus

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

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

3. District Collector, Kota, District, Kota, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1260/2026

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

2. 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. ----Petitioners Versus

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

4. Secretariat, Jaipur. District Collector, Dausa, Rajasthan. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dausa, Rajasthan. Sub Divisional Officer, Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13489/2024 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) Versus ----Petitioner

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

2. The District Collector, District Alwar. [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (18 of 68) [CW-988/2026] D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18877/2025 Jagdish Singh S/o Shri Pukhraj Singh, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village Gurja, Sengpura, Tehsil Karauli District Karauli ----Respondents Versus ----Petitioner

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur District Collector, Karauli Rajasthan Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Karauli

3. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18882/2025 Arjun Lal Bairwa S/o Shri Shyokaran Bairwa, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Chawandiya, Po Chavandia, District Tonk Rajasthan ----Respondents Versus ----Petitioner

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

3. Secretariat, Jaipur District Collector, Tonk Rajasthan Chief Executive Officer Zila Parishad, Tonk Rajasthan ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19320/2025

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

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

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

4. Banwari Saini Son Of Shri Kanaram Saini, Aged About 29 [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (19 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Years, Resident Of Ward No.10, Chandsen, Lalsot, District-Dausa (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Throught Secretary, Department Of Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat Jaipur (Rajasthan). District Collector, Dausa (Rajasthan). Sub-Divisonal Officer Lalsot, District-Dausa (Rajasthan).

3. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19436/2025 Premraj Mina Son Of Jainarayan, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Village Bhadlav Tehsil And District Sawaimadhopur. Versus ----Petitioner

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

3. Jaipur. District Collector, Sawaimadhopur. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sawaimadhopur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19559/2025 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. Versus ----Petitioner

1. 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.

2. District Election Officer / District Collector, District Dausa, Dausa Collectorate, Somnath Nagar, Dausa - 303303 [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (20 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Rajasthan.

3. Sub Division Magistrate, Sdm Office, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19665/2025 Chain Singh S/o Shri Chatar Singh, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Village Rampuriya Jagir, Post Bansthuni, Tehsil Kishanganj, District Baran, Rajasthan. Versus ----Petitioner

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

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

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

5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Baran, District Baran, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19685/2025

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

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

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

2. The Secretary And Commissioner, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayat Raj, Government [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (21 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Secretariat, Jaipur.

4. The District Collector, Khairthal Tijara, Rajasthan. The Sub Divisional Officer, Mundawar, District Khairthal Tijara, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20158/2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. District Collector, District Alwar (Rajasthan) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20181/2025

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

2. Suraj Chouhan S/o Sajjan Singh, Aged About 32 Years, [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (22 of 68) [CW-988/2026] R/o Village And Post Hulmana Kalan, Tehsil Mundawar, District Khiarthal-Tijara, Rajasthan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. District Collector, District Khairthal-Tijara, Raj. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20565/2025 Sitaram Gurjar Son Of Shri Punya Ram Gujar, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Village Karanpur, Post Patauli, Tehsil Mahawa, District Dausa, Rajasthan. Versus ----Petitioner

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

2. District Collector Dausa Rajasthan, Collectorate Dausa, Rajasthan.

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

4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dausa, Rajasthan [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (23 of 68) [CW-988/2026] D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 97/2026 Dhanraj Mehta S/o Shri Indralal Mehta, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Kaloniya, Tehsil Shahbad, District Baran Rajasthan ----Respondents Versus ----Petitioner

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

3. Secretariat, Jaipur District Collector, Baran Rajasthan Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Baran Rajasthan ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 194/2026 Hanif Khan S/o Rustum, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Bera Bas Bera Was, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan. Versus ----Petitioner

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

2. Secretariat, Jaipur. District Collector, Alwar, Rajasthan. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 299/2026 Alkesh, Aged About 27 Years, S/o Shri Ramchandra 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. ----Petitioners Versus

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

2. The District Collector, Collectrate, Distt. Sikar, Rajasthan. [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (24 of 68) [CW-988/2026] ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 325/2026

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

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

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) The District Collector, District Deeg (Raj.) The Sub- Divisional Officer, Kaman, Distt. Deeg (Raj.)

3. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 371/2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (25 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan

4. Director Cum Special Secretary, Local Self Department, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Line Crossing, Jaipur - 302016. District Collector, District Bundi, Rajasthan. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bundi, Rajasthan.

6. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 412/2026 Arjun Singh S/o Govindram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village Hudera, Tehsil Ramgarh Shekhawati, Panchayat Samiti Ramgarh Shekhawati, District Sikar (Rajasthan). Versus ----Petitioner

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

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

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

4. The Authorized Officer (District Collector), Sikar. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 416/2026 Krishna Gopal Sain S/o Shri Satyanarayan Sain, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Khatiyon Ka Mohalla, Village Kachnaria, Kachneriya, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Versus ----Petitioner

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

3. Secretariat, Jaipur. District Collector, Jaipur Rajasthan. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaipur Rajasthan. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 428/2026 ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (26 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Omprakash Sharma S/o Shri Laxminarayan Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Lalsar, Post Pal, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli Versus ----Petitioner

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

3. Secretariat, Jaipur District Collector, Karauli Rajasthan Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Karauli Rajasthan ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 434/2026 Bishan Singh S/o Shri Revat Singh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o 21, Rajpooto Ka Mohalla, Pinach, Phagi District Jaipur Versus ----Petitioner

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

3. Secretariat, Jaipur District Collector, Jaipur Rajasthan Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaipur Rajasthan ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 440/2026 Sumer Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Near Sahakari Samiti, Neemli, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur. Versus ----Petitioner

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

3. Secretariat, Jaipur District Collector, Jaipur Rajasthan. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaipur Rajasthan D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 448/2026 ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (27 of 68) [CW-988/2026]

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

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

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

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

3. District Collector Alwar, District Alwar (Raj.) Sub Divisional Officer, Raini District Alwar (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 542/2026 Villagers Of Village Baseri, Panchayati Samiti Karauli Through, Virendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuveer Singh, Resident Of Village Baseri (Sundarpura), Panchayati Samiti Karauli (Raj.) Versus ----Petitioner

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

3. The District Collector, Karauli, Dist. Karauli, Rajasthan. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Karauli, Rajasthan.

4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karauli, District Karauli, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 702/2026

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

2. 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] (28 of 68) [CW-988/2026] ----Petitioners Versus

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

2. The District Collector, Collectrate, Distt. Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 703/2026

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

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

2. The District Collector, Collectrate, Distt. Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 724/2026

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

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

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

4. The District Collector, Jhunjhunu. Sub- Divisional Officer, Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu. Tehsildar, Tehsil Gudhagaurji, District Jhunjhunu. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 746/2026 ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (29 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Veer Singh Bhati Son Of Late Shri Mangal, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Kandewla, Tehsil Pahari, Khandewla, District Deeg Rajasthan. Versus ----Petitioner

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) The District Collector, District Deeg (Raj.) The Sub-Divisional Officer, Pahari, Distt. Deeg (Raj.)

3. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 768/2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur District Collector, Dausa Rajasthan Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dausa Rajasthan

3. [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (30 of 68) [CW-988/2026] ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 792/2026

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

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

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

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

3. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector Jhunjhunu Rajasthan,333516. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 793/2026

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

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

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

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

3. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector Bundi Rajasthan,323802 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 794/2026 Vinod Kumawat S/o Ram Sahay Kumawat, Aged About 46 Years, ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (31 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Ma Janki Peeli Chowk, Baya, Dantaramgarh, Bay, Sikar, Rajasthan, 332601. Versus ----Petitioner

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

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

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

4. State Of Rajasthan, Through The S.d.m Of Dantaramgrah, Sikar, Rajasthan,332601 ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 797/2026

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

2. 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.)

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

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

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

4. District Collector, District Tonk (Raj.) Panchayat Samiti Uniyara, District Tonk D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 816/2026 Jitendra Singh Meena S/o Shri Ramswaroop Meena, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village And Post Narayana Tehsil Masalpur District ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (32 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Karauli Rajasthan. Versus ----Petitioner

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

2. District Collector, Karauli Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 853/2026 Anuraj Mothiya Son Of Shri Mahesh Chand Meena, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Kirwada, Tehsil Todabheem, District Karauli -322220 (Rajasthan). Versus ----Petitioner

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

2. Deputy Commissioner And Deputy Secretary, To Government-First, Gramin Vikas And Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayati Raj), Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 861/2026 Nathu Lal Gurjar S/o Shri Ramswaroop Gurjar, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Gurjar Ki Dhani, Thikariya, Nihaipura, Dausa (Raj.) ----Respondents Versus ----Petitioner

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

3. Secretariat, Jaipur District Collector, Dausa, Rajasthan Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dausa, Rajasthan ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (33 of 68) [CW-988/2026] D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 878/2026

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

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

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

4. District Collector, Alwar, District Alwar (Raj.) Sub Divisional Officer, Thanagaji, District Alwar (Raj.) Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Pratapgarh, District Alwar (Raj.) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 881/2026 Madanlal Sharma S/o Shri Chhoturam Sharma, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Kalyanpura, Chaksu, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents Versus ----Petitioner

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

3. Secretariat, Jaipur. District Collector, Jaipur Rajasthan. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 884/2026 Raju Singh Naruka S/o Mohan Singh Naruka, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Pachala, Tehsil Phagi, Distt. Jaipur Versus ----Petitioner

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (34 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur District Collector, Jaipur, Rajasthan Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Respondents

3. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 885/2026 Ramjilal Bairwa S/o Shri Ramsukha, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Hamirpura, Dausa, Distt. Dausa Versus ----Petitioner

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

3. Secretariat, Jaipur District Collector, Dausa, Rajasthan Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dausa, Rajasthan ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 896/2026 Sitaram Meena S/o Shri Mangilal Meena, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Baga Wali Dhani, Ajabpura, Shivsinghpura, Dausa, Distt. Dausa Versus ----Petitioner

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

3. Secretariat, Jaipur District Collector, Dausa, Rajasthan Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dausa, Rajasthan ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 901/2026 Satyanarayan Bairwa S/o Shri Hariprasad Bairwa, Aged About 40 Years, R/o House No. 32, Suratpura, Dausa, Distt. Dausa Versus ----Petitioner

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (35 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur District Collector, Dausa, Rajasthan Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dausa, Rajasthan

3. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 912/2026 Ganesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Nathu Lal Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Jonapa Ki Dhani, Tehsil Lalsot, Distt. Dausa (Raj.) Versus ----Petitioner

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

3. Secretariat, Jaipur. District Collector, Dausa Rajasthan Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dausa, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 915/2026 Mukesh Kumar Son Of Shri Pura Ram, Aged About 30 Years, Permanent Residing At Village- Puniyana, Tehsil-Dantaramgarh, Panchayat Samiti Dantaramgarh, District-Sikar (Raj.) Versus ----Petitioner

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

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

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

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sikar, District Sikar (Rajasthan). D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 981/2026 Bharat Lal Meena S/o Ramjilal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o 12, ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (36 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Santa Ka Pura, Chakgazipur, Post Kariri, Todabhim, District Karauli. Versus ----Petitioner

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

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

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

4. The District Collector, Karauli. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 989/2026 Kamlesh Kumar Meena S/o Kalu Ram Meena, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Diwacha Dani, Vijaipura, Post Srimaa, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan. Versus ----Petitioner

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

3. Secretariat, Jaipur. District Collector, Dausa, Rajasthan. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dausa, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1012/2026 Uday Lal Gurjar S/o Radhakishan Gurjar, Aged About 27 Years, Shri Nagar, Shree Nagar, Kanechan Kalan, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, 311407 Versus ----Petitioner

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

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Deputy Secretary Of Rural [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (37 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Development And Panchayati Raj Department Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302003

3. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector Bhilwara Rajasthan, 311001 ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1016/2026

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

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

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

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

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

4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Pahari, District Deeg, Rajasthan ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1042/2026

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

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

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department Of [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (38 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302003

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

3. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector Sawai Madhopur Rajasthan, 322001 ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1043/2026 Chhittar Mal Khedar, Son Of Shri Ramdhan Khedar, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Ratanpura, Tehsil Shrimadhopur District Sikar, Rajasthan. Versus ----Petitioner

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

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

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

5. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Shri Madhopur, District Sikar ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1056/2026 Roop Singh S/o Shri Jagan, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Village Bandh Ka Nagla, Post Hukmi Khera Karauli, Rajasthan- 32236 Versus ----Petitioner

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

2. The Deputy Secretary And Deputy Commissioner (I), Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayati Raj Department), Jaipur [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (39 of 68) [CW-988/2026]

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

4. The District Electoral Officer And District Collector, Karauli, District Karauli ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1058/2026 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.) Versus ----Petitioner

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

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

6. (Panchayati Raj Department), Jaipur The District Collector, Karauli, District Karauli Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Karauli, District Karauli The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nandauti, District Karauli The Block Development Officer, Block Nandauti, District Karauli. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1108/2026

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

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

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

2. Commissioner And Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (40 of 68) [CW-988/2026]

5. Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur District Collector And District Magistrate, Bharatpur Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhusawar District Bharatpur ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1221/2026 Rajendra Singh Gurjar S/o Sarup Gurjar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Bhanwarpura, Post- Sasedi, Bhanwarpura, Dist. Karauli, Rajasthan, 322249. Versus ----Petitioner

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

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

3. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector Karauli Rajasthan, 302016 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1226/2026 Mahesh Kumar Gupta S/o Jagdish Prashad, Aged About 44 Years, Mirzapur, Palwa, Alwar, Rajasthan, 301706 ----Respondents Versus ----Petitioner

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

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

3. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector Alwar Rajasthan, 301001 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1235/2026

1. Jagdish S/o Rambharoshi, Aged About 45 Years, Unchagaon, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, 321303 ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (41 of 68) [CW-988/2026]

2. Arjun Singh S/o Vijendra Singh, Aged About 45 Years, Unchagaon, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, 321303 ----Petitioners Versus

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

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

3. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector Bharatpur Rajasthan, 321001 ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1259/2026 Rameshwar Dayal Sharma, Son Of Shri Deviram Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Village Gehlawata, Gram Panchayat Khedli-Sokhar, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar. Versus ----Petitioner

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

2. The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) The District Collector, Alwar. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar.

4. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1263/2026 Chatar Singh S/o Ramswroop, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village Bandha Chouth, Tehsil Deeg, District Deeg, Rajasthan. ----Respondents Versus ----Petitioner

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (42 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Secretary And Commissioner, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. District Collector, Deeg, Rajasthan. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Deeg, Rajasthan. Sub Divisional Officer, Deeg, District Deeg, Rajasthan.

5. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1265/2026 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. Versus ----Petitioner

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

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

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

5. Sub Divisional Officer, Uchchain, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1269/2026

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

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

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Dy. Secretary Administration (First), Village Development And [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (43 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Panchayatiraj Department (Panchayatiraj), Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

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

4. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1273/2026

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

2. Suresh Kumar S/o Bhavar Lal, Aged About 35 Years, Koomla, Takarwada, Kota, Rajasthan, 325204 ----Petitioners Versus

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

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

3. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector Kota Rajasthan- 323802 ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1323/2026

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

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

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

4. Ramjilal Bairwa Son Of Gopi, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Banda Ki Dongari, Panchayat Samiti, Sapotra, District Karauli (Rajasthan) [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (44 of 68) [CW-988/2026]

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

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

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

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

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

3. District Collector, Karauli, District Karauli. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1357/2026

1. 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.

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

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

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

3. District Collector, Sikar-332001. [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (45 of 68) [CW-988/2026]

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

6. 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. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20805/2025

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

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

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

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

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

5. Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. District Collector, Dholpur, District Dholpur. Sub Divisional Officer, Rajakheda, District Dholpur. Tehsildar, Rajakheda, District Dholpur. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samit Rajakheda, District Dholpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 790/2026 [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (46 of 68) [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 ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Director Cum Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur District Collector, Bundi Rajasthan Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bundi Sub Divisional Magistrate, K. Patan, District Bundi

4. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 197/2026

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

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

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

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

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, (Panchayati Raj Department), Government Secretariat, Jaipur. District Collector, Bharatpur (Raj.) Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur. Tehsildar, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur.

4. ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (47 of 68) [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. [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (48 of 68) [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. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA 21/01/2026 Order

1. 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.

2. 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] (49 of 68) [CW-988/2026] another; inclusion or exclusion of villages from one Gram Panchayat to another.

3. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (50 of 68) [CW-988/2026] 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 [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (51 of 68) [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.

5. 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:- “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. [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (52 of 68) [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) “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.”

6. 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:-

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 [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (53 of 68) [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.”

7. 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:-

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, [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (54 of 68) [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. 11. 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.

8. Learned counsels further relied upon the judgment passed by 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:-

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. 13. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (55 of 68) [CW-988/2026] relevant to certain 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 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. 14. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (56 of 68) [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 sub- section (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 sub- section (1) of Section 106 of the Act. 15. 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.

9. Learned counsels further relied upon the judgment passed by this High Court in the matter of Bhanwar Lal Mundra and Ors. vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in 2013 (3) WLC (Raj.) 255 wherein para Nos.23 & 26, it has been held as under:- “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 [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (57 of 68) [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.

26. 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.

10. Learned counsels further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Darshan Singh reported in 2004 (1) SCC 328.

11. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (58 of 68) [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 :- “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. 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? 2. What is the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matters relating to Delimitation notifications? 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? 4. Whether the petitioners have locus to maintain the writ petition challenging the delimitation notification? 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? 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 [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (59 of 68) [CW-988/2026] sustainable in view of the grounds raised therein?

110. 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. 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 non- adherence of the guiding principle cannot be a valid ground to question the final delimitation notification.

148. 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. [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (60 of 68) [CW-988/2026] The authorities considering the objections / vi) 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. 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.

150. 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.

165. 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. 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.

166. We have also considered D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.9199/2025 (Sanwar Mal Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (61 of 68) [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. 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.

167. 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.

201. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (62 of 68) [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.

207. Accordingly, this Court holds that non- observance 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.

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. In view of the adjudication made and 224.2 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. 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. 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.

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. Consequently, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1005/2025 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (63 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Narayan Singh Solanki & Ors.) filed for challenging the interim order dated 11.06.2025, is hereby dismissed. 224.4 In view of the adjudication made and conclusion drawn in Part-D of the judgment, the writ petitions challenging removal of Panchayat on account of Samiti Member / Pradhan, delimitation of respective areas / wards, are hereby dismissed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

224.9 application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Stay applications and all pending [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (64 of 68) [CW-988/2026]

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

13. He further submits that the aforesaid judgment came to be challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of 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:- “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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

14. He further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sanyam Lodha Vs. State of Rajasthan (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 36874/2025) decided on 19.12.2025, wherein it has been held as under:-

1. 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. [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (65 of 68) [CW-988/2026]

2. 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.

3. 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.

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

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

15. 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:-

1. 2. Heard. The prayer made in this petition is as follows: “I. Issue an appropriate order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 28.12.2025 bearing No. पु(cid:4)नर्ग(cid:7)ठन / वि(cid:10)धि(cid:12)/ पु(cid:13)रा(cid:15)/ 2024/891, is- एफ. 15 (36) / sued 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. II. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the Re- spondents to retain/restore Gram Panchayat Chandeli ka Bas - Puniyana within the jurisdic- tion of Panchayat Samiti Dantaramgarh, District [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (66 of 68) [CW-988/2026] Sikar, in accordance with law and keeping in view contiguity, distance and administrative con- venience. III. In the alternative, issue an appropriate order or direction directing the Respondents to recon- sider the placement of Gram Panchayat Chandeli ka Bas - Puniyana after affording due opportu- nity of hearing to the residents of the concerned Gram Panchayat and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a time-bound period. 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.”

3. 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 Govern- ment in conducting the exercise relating to the de- limitation aspect and the involvement of the people of the concerned village has also been discussed at length. We have been informed that the said judg- ment stands upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Villagers of Revenue Village Sing- haniya & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.34/2026] vide order dated 05.01.2026. In view thereto, the issue raised in this peti- 4. tion need not be again examined by this Court and the writ petition stands disposed of in the same terms as Sheela Kumari (supra). 5. We have already held that if any representa- tion is made, the same shall be considered and ex- amined by the authorities.”

16. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (67 of 68) [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 gram- panchayats. 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.

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

18. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:2620-DB] (68 of 68) [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. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J MG/48-134,5,6,7 (Except item No.56 & 80)