SITA DEVI W/O LATE SHRI RAMAVTAR AGARWAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CW/3710/2025 · 2025-04-15
Anoop Kumar Dhand
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 10690 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 10690 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:16037] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3710/2025
1. Sita Devi W/o Late Shri Ramavtar Agarwal, Aged About 73 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 8, Khetri Mode, Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.)
2. Vinod Kumar S/o Late Shri Ramavtar Agarwal, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 8, Khetri Mode, Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To Government, Lsg Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director, Local Bodies, Government Of Rajasthan, Near Civil Lines Phatak, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. District Collector, Sikar (Raj.)
4. Sub Divisional Officer, Neemakathana, District Sikar (Raj.)
5. Chairman, Municipal Board, Neemakathana, District Sikar (Raj.)
6. Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Neemakathana, District Sikar (Raj.)
7. Assistant
Engineer,
Public
Works
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Neemkathana, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Sharma for Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order 15/04/2025
1. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
“(a) By issuing an appropriate order or direction thereby thereto respondents may be restrained from
[2025:RJ-JP:16037] (2 of 3) [CW-3710/2025] acquiring/demolishing the shops situated at Khetri Mod, Neem ka Thana and no coercive actions may be initiated. (b) Respondents may further be directed to provide fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner before taking any impugned action in respective of the area where the shops occupied by the petitioner, however any notice in this regard may kindly be quashed and set aside. (c) Any other order or directions in the interest of justice may be made and the costs of filing the writ petition may be granted to the petitioners.”
2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking directions against the respondents for restraining them from acquiring/demolishing the shops of the petitioners situated at Khetri Mod, Neem Ka Thana and not to take any coercive action against him. 3
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in possession of patta issued by Municipal Board, Neem Ka Thana in the year 1953. Learned counsel submits that without cancellation of the said patta, no proceedings can be initiated to dispossess them on the pretext of widening the width of the road. Learned counsel submits that even on earlier occasion also, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5163/2017, however the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2017 by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities for disposal of the legal notices/representation given by the petitioner.
4.
Learned counsel submits that the respondents have decided the legal notices/representation of the petitioner vide order dated 16.08.2017 wherein they are not recognising the patta of the petitioner as valid, hence interference of this Court is warranted.
[2025:RJ-JP:16037] (3 of 3) [CW-3710/2025]
5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.
6. Perusal of the record as well as order dated 16.08.2017 passed by the Municipal Board, Neem Ka Thana indicate that patta has been disputed by the Board and ownership of the petitioners over the land in question has been doubted.
7. Whether the petitioners are in possession of valid patta or not and whether the petitioners are the original owners over the property in question or not are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. In view of above, the instant writ petition stands dismissed on this count alone. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand dismissed.
9. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach competent court of law for adjudication of their rights on the property in question.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/8