HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6010/2025 1. Mukesh Kumar Saini Son Of Shri Pannalal, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Ward No.11, Narsinhpura, Baldh Ki Dhani, Po Ved Ki Dhani, District Sikar, Rajasthan. 2. Sushila Devi Wife Of Shri Nagarmal, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Maliyon Ki Dhani Uparwali, Harsh, Sikar, Rajasthan. 3. Mukesh Kumar Son Of Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Dhani Jajam Ki, Shishyu, District Sikar, Rajasthan. 4. Irfan Son Of Yakub Teli, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Ward No.3, Maszid Ke Pass, Ranoli, Post Ranoli, District Sikar, Rajasthan. 5. Pushpa Devi Wife Of Shri Vimal Kumar Patni, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Ward No.7, Ajad Mohalla, Ranoli, District Sikar, Rajasthan. 6. Mukesh Kumar Saini Son Of Shri Maliram Saini, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Ward No.12, Power House Ke Piche, Ranoli, Post Ranoli, District Sikar. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary, Public Work Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. District Collector, Sikar. 3. Sub-Divisional Officer Dantaramgarh, District Sikar. 4. 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. (2 of 4) [CW-6010/2025] ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 23/04/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:- “(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 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.” 2. 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. 3. 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 (3 of 4) [CW-6010/2025] 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. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Without going into the controversy involved in this matter and 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 order, after taking into account the stand of the petitioners and affording due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties. 6. In view of the above, this writ petition stands 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. 7. Stay applications as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. 8. In the meanwhile for the period of four weeks, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioners. 9. 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. (4 of 4) [CW-6010/2025] 10. 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/53