HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11684/2018 Guljhari Khan S/o Shri Habib Khan, R/o Ward No. 6, Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through District Collector, Jhunjhunu. 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu 3. Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu 4. Tehsildar Land Record Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu 5. Patwari Halka, Surajgarh, Tehsil Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Kumar Budaina For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.P.S. Rajawat for Mr. G.S. Gill- AAG JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 09/05/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made by the counsel for the petitioner for issuing a direction to the respondents for doing ‘pathar-garhi’ on the land in question. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that demarcation of the land has already been done by the Officer and the encroachment was found on the land in question but no pathar-garhi has been done instead of the order passed by the Competent Court, so appropriate direction be issued. 3. Counsel for the State respondent submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court as well as the order passed by the (2 of 2) [CW-11684/2018] Competent Court, the site in question was inspected by a team, constituted for the said purpose but the pathar-garhi could not be done on account of certain constructions work over the land in question. Counsel submits that one-Bhagwati Devi, preferred an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 before the Divisional Commissioner against the order dated 22.05.2017 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Surjagarh wherein the petitioner was impleaded as party respondent No. 2 and an interim order was passed, directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the site and record, hence under these circumstances, the process of pathar-garhi could not be completed. 4. Considering the submissions made by counsel for the respondents and looking to the fact that the matter is sub judice before the Divisional Commissioner, where the petitioner was also impleaded as party respondent, thus the petitioner is at liberty to argue the matter before the Divisional Commissioner. In any case, if the appeal submitted by the Bhagwati Devi is rejected, then appropriate application may be submitted by the petitioner before the authorities concerned for doing the needful. 5. The present writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly. 6. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/64