✦ High Court of India · 21 Apr 2025

District Sikar (Raj.) v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary, Public Work

Case Details High Court of India · 21 Apr 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
21 Apr 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,246 words

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary, Public Work

4. Department, Rajasthan Jaipur Secretariat. District Collector, Sikar. Sub-Divisional Officer, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar. Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

5. Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Division Sikar-Second, Sikar.

6. Assistant Engineer Pwd, Sub-Division Dantaramgarh, District Sikar.

7. The Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat Ranoli, Panchayat Samiti Palsana, District Sikar.

8. Sarpanch/prasasakh Gram Panchayat Ranoli, Panchayat Samiti Palsana, District Sikar. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3631/2025

Bhinwa Ram Kumawat S/o Shri Mangal Chand Kumawat, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Trilokpura, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.)

2. Smt. Gyarasi Devi W/o Shri Bhinwa Ram, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Trilokpura, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary, Public Work Department, Rajasthan Jaipur Secretariate. [2025:RJ-JP:16684] (2 of 6) [CW-3630/2025]

4. District Collector, Sikar. Sub-Divisional Officer, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar. Chief Engineer Public Work Department (Pwd), Head Office 170, Kamala Nehru Nagar, Ganpati Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302007.

5. Executive Engineer Public Work Department Division, Sikar Second, Sikar.

6. Assistant Engineer Pwd, Sub-Division Dantaramgarh, District Sikar.

7. The Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat Ranoli, Panchayat Samiti Palsana, District Sikar.

8. Sarpanch/prasasakh Gram Panchayat Ranoli, Panchayat Samiti Palsana, District Sikar. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3633/2025 Mohammad Iqabal S/o Sarajudeen, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Ward No. 13, Railway Phatak Ke Pass Ranoli, District Sikar Rajasthan. Versus ----Petitioner

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary, Public Work Department, Rajasthan Jaipur Secretariate.

4. District Collector, Sikar. Sub-Divisional Officer, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar. Chief Engineer Public Work Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

5. Executive Engineer Public Work Department Division, Sikar-Second, Sikar.

6. Assistant Engineer Pwd, Sub-Division Dantaramgarh, District Sikar.

7. The Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat Ranoli, Panchayat Samiti Palsana, District Sikar.

8. Sarpanch/prasasakh Gram Panchayat Ranoli, Panchayat Samiti Palsana, District Sikar. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3634/2025 ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:16684] (3 of 6) [CW-3630/2025]

1. Mohmmad Rafiq W/o Late Gafur Rangrej, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Ward No. 03, Main Bazar Ranoli, Tehsil Danta Ramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.)

2. Jhuhana W/o Abdul Gaphur Rangrej, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Ward No. 03, Main Market Ranoli, Tehsil Danta Ramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary, Public Work Department, Rajasthan Jaipur Secretariate.

4. District Collector, Sikar. Sub-Divisional Officer, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar. Chief Engineer Public Work Department (Pwd), Head Office 170, Kamala Nehru Nagar, Ganpati Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302007.

5. Executive Engineer Public Work Department Division, Sikar Second, Sikar.

6. Assistant Engineer Pwd, Sub-Division Dantaramgarh, District Sikar.

7. The Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat Ranoli, Panchayat Samiti Palsana, District Sikar.

8. Sarpanch/prasasakh Gram Panchayat Ranoli, Panchayat Samiti Palsana, District Sikar. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3632/2025

1. Satyanarayan Jangir S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Jangir, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Ward No. 5 Nasiyon Ranoli, District Sikar (Raj.)

2. Smt. Meera Devi W/o Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Jangir, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Ward No. 07, Station Raod Ranoli District Sikar (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary, Public Work Department, Rajasthan Jaipur Secretariate. [2025:RJ-JP:16684] (4 of 6) [CW-3630/2025]

4. District Collector, Sikar. Sub-Divisional Officer, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar. Chief Engineer Public Work Department (Pwd), Head Office 170, Kamala Nehru Nagar, Ganpati Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302007.

5. Executive Engineer Public Work Department Division, Sikar Second, Sikar.

6. Assistant Engineer Pwd, Sub-Division Dantaramgarh, District Sikar.

7. The Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat Ranoli, Panchayat Samiti Palsana, District Sikar.

8. Sarpanch/prasasakh Gram Panchayat Ranoli, Panchayat Samiti Palsana, District Sikar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sultan Singh Kuri JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 21/04/2025

1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the petitioners, these matters are taken up for final disposal and are being decided by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience the prayer mentioned in SB Civil Writ Petition No.3630/2025 has been taken into consideration: “(i) The impugned notice dated 10.02.2025 issued by the respondent No.7 & 8 may kindly be quashed and set-aside with the direction to the respondents not to initiate any proceeding of demolishing the commercial shop established of the petitioners under the grab of Atal Pragati Path proposed to be constructed at gram [2025:RJ-JP:16684] (5 of 6) [CW-3630/2025] panchayat ranoli, panchayat samiti palsana, District Sikar. (ii) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also passed in favour of petitioners. (iii) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petition.”

3. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the notice/order dated 10.02.2025 by which the petitioners have been called upon to remove their possession from the land in question.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question on the basis of valid documents but without taking note of this factual aspect of the matter, the respondents are bent upon to demolish the constructions raised by the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners had approached the authorities concerned by way of filing representations for redressal of their grievances but no heed has been paid, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

6. Without going into the controversy involved in these matters without entering into merits of the case, but looking to the fact that the petitioners have already approached the authorities concerned by way of filing representations, it is expected from the authorities concerned to decide the said representations of the petitioners expeditiously by passing a reasoned and speaking [2025:RJ-JP:16684] (6 of 6) [CW-3630/2025] order, after taking into account the stand of the petitioners and affording due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties.

7. In view of the above, all these writ petitions stand disposed of by issuing directions to the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioners expeditiously, as early as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

8. Stay applications as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.

9. In the meanwhile for the period of four weeks, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioners.

10. In case, the respondents come to the conclusion that encroachments exist on the property in question and the petitioners have no right over the same, they would be at liberty to demolish the same for the purpose of construction of the road and proceed further in accordance with law.

11. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not issued any direction/order to the respondents to decide the representations of the petitioners in a particular manner/way. They would be at liberty to decide the said representations of the petitioners in accordance with law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/9-12 & 36

Find similar cases Start drafting free
This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments