[2025:RJ-JP:9692-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil (PIL) Writ Petition No. 6988/2024 1. Guman Singh S/o Banai Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Gujar Patti, Village And Post Bonl, Tehsil Todabhim, District Gangapur City, Rajasthan. 2. Kistura Gurjar S/o Shri Bheron Singh, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Village And Post Bonl, Tehsil Todabhim, District Gangapur City, Rajasthan. 3. Kanhaiy Gurjar S/o Shri Nangu Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village And Post Bonl, Tehsil Todabhim, District Gangapur City, Rajasthan. 4. Suresh S/o Karan, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village And Post Bonl, Tehsil Todabhim, District Gangapur City, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secrtary, Department of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. District Collector Dausa, District Dausa, Rajasthan. 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Mahua, District Dausa, Rajasthan. 4. Tehsildar Tehsil Mahua, District Dausa Rajasthan. 5. Raghuraj, S/o Ramprasad 6. Nangu, S/o Ramprasad 7. Bhim, S/o Ramprasad 8. Prithviraj Alias Ganni, S/o Ramprasad 9. Bijendra, S/o Nawal 10. Lajjaram, S/o Naval 11. Sumer, S/o Naval 12. Dinesh, S/o Ramdhan 13. Ramu, S/o Raghuraj 14. Rajsingh, S/o Raghuraj 15. Maharajsingh, S/o Raghuraj 16. Anoop, S/o Nangu 17. Veersingh, S/o Nangu 18. Resham, S/o Nangu 19. Virendrsingh, S/o Bhim 20. Vijay, S/o Bhim [2025:RJ-JP:9692-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-6988/2024] 21. Balram, S/o Prithviraj 22. Shyamsingh, S/o Prithviraj 23. Sonu, S/o Bijendra 24. Vishnu, S/o Bijendra 25. Devendra, S/o Lajjaram 26. Keshar, S/o Lajjaram 27. Rinkesh S/o Lajjaram, Respondents No. 5 To 27 All Resident of Village and Post Salempur, Tehsil Mahua, District Dausa, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioners : Ms. Sudesh Kasana Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. G.S. Gill Additional Advocate General with Mr. S.P. Singh Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 05/03/2025 1. Though the case is listed as P.F. has not been submitted for service of notice on Respondents No. 5 to 27, on the face of the allegations of encroachment, the reply of the respondents shows that the crops were seized and the action has been taken against the encroachers. 2. If the petitioners dispute the above factual submission, remedy of the petitioners lies elsewhere and not before the writ court. Therefore, we are not inclined to proceed further in the matter. 3. Writ petition is disposed off accordingly. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ MANOJ NARWANI-ANU/48