[2025:RJ-JP:28315] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5965/2009 Nand Kishore S/o. Mathura Lal, Village Mehrana, Tehsil Degod, District Kota Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Additional Collector, Kota 2. Panchayat Samiti Sultanpur, Distt. Kota Through Development Officer 3. Gram Panchayat Khedli Tavran, Tehsil Degod, Distt. Kota 4. Nathu Lal S/o. Madho Lal, Mehrana, Tehsil Degod, Distt. Kota ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Govind Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr.Naseemuddin Quazi Mr.Kesar Singh Shekhawat, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 28/07/2025 1. This petition is filed challenging the orders dated 25.02.2009 and 27.12.2007 passed by the Additional Collector, Kota and Panchayat Samiti, Sultanpur, Distt. Kota respectively. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner demolished his house situated in west side of the Temple Shri Kalyanji Maharaj at Village Mehrana, Gram Panchayat Khedli Tavran, Tehsil Degod, Distt. Kota. By an application dated 17.11.2004, petitioner got permission from the Gram Panchayat, Khedli to rebuild the demolished portion and the door of the house. On receiving a complaint on 18.12.2004, the permission granted by the Sarpanch for re-construction of the demolished portion was stayed by the [2025:RJ-JP:28315] (2 of 3) [CW-5965/2009] Gram Panchayat, Khedli. Vide order dated 22.12.2004, the stay order was vacated taking into consideration that the matter relates to Devesthan and the Gram Panchayat had no jurisdiction. The application filed by respondent No.4 – Nathu Lal before the Deputy Collector (Administrative) was allowed vide order dated 27.12.2007, wherein it was held that the petitioner has made encroachment of four feet towards Ganesh Ji platform (Chabutra). 2.1. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 25.02.2009. The revisional authority considered that the petitioner is priest in the temple and as per the spot inspection report has encroached the temple land for construction of his house. It was observed that the permission for reconstruction by the Sarpanch was given without issuance of notice to the affected party or a public notice and no spot inspection was carried out. The order of the authority below was upheld. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after vacation of stay, construction work has been completed, it is a small house in the village and there is no encroachment. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned orders, submits that the petitioner had encroached four feet towards the temple and earlier there was a window in the wall towards the temple and during reconstruction the door was made. 5. The petitioner is priest of the temple. The house was near the temple and a portion of the house was demolished. The dispute arose after reconstruction of the demolished portion. The concurrent factual findings by the authorities below is that the petitioner encroached on the temple land. In absence of any [2025:RJ-JP:28315] (3 of 3) [CW-5965/2009] factual, legal error and perversity in the findings recorded no interference is called for in the writ jurisdiction. 6. Reliance of the petitioner on the permission granted by the Sarpanch for reconstruction is of no avail as this permission was granted without following the procedure or putting notice to the affected parties. This issue gains importance in the backdrop that it was the petitioner who was taking care of the temple and has himself encroached the temple land. It’s a case where the fence itself may eat up the field. 7. The writ petition is dismissed having no merit. (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Simple Kumawat/51 Reportable: No