HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3320/2012 Hari Ram Son Of Shri Baburam, aged 50 years, resident of Nai Kothi, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through District Collector, Jhunjhunu 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu 3. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Khetri, District Jhunjhunu 4. Gram Sewak Cum Paden Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Madhogarh, Panchayat Samiti Khetri, District Jhunjhunu 5. Suresh Kumar Sharma Journalist Son Of Shri Girdharilal Sharma, Village Nai Kothi, Gram Panchayat Madhogarh, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu 6. Dataram Mankas Son Of Shri Mool Chand Mankas, Village Nai Kothi, Gram Panchayat Madhogarh, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu 7. Onkar Mankas Son Of Shri Sunaram, Village Nai Kothi, Gram Panchayat Madhogarh, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu 8. Shri Gariba Ram Son Of Shri Suraj Ram, Village Nai Kothi, Gram Panchayat Madhogarh, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Ratan Gurjar for Mr. M.K. Kaushik For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Sharma for Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG Mr. Kesar Singh Shekhawat, AGC Mr. R.S. Bharadwaj JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order (2 of 2) [CW-3320/2012] 12/05/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing direction to the respondents to remove encroachment made at public land bearing khasra No.847, Nai Kothi, Madhogarh, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that after inspecting site in question, all encroachments have been removed and now, there exists no encroachment on the land in question. Counsel submits that the said inspection report dated 04.09.2012 has been placed on the record, hence, under these circumstances, no further cause of action survives with the petitioner to continue with this writ petition and the same has become infructuous. 3. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter, the instant writ petition is dismissed as rendered infructuous. 4. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to move appropriate application before the authorities concerned, in case, any fresh cause of action arises in future. 5. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/33