[2025:RJ-JP:25179] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7951/2025 Rahul Sharma S/o Gopal Sharma, R/o Mandir Narsingh Ji Maharaj Baba Harishchndra Marg, Ramnath Pujari Ki Gali, Bhura Teba, Jaipur-302007 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pr. Secretary To Government, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. District Collector, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Chief Enforcement Officer, Jaipur Development Authority, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) 5. Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur (Raj.) 6. Assistant Commissioner-Ii, Devasthan Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Opposite Hawa Mahal, Jaipur (Raj.) 7. Sub-Divisional Officer, Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.) 8. Tehsildar, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.) 9. Incharge, Police Station, Muhana Thana, District Jaipur (Raj.) 10. Incharge, Police Station Sanganer Saddar Thana, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta with Mr. Basant Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 08/07/2025 This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to remove the illegal encroachment over the land of [2025:RJ-JP:25179] (2 of 5) [CW-7951/2025] Khasra Nos. 313, 314, 315, 317, 62, 70, 71, 72 & 73 situated at Village Madau, Patwar Halka Jaisinghpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur and Khasra Nos.39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 51, 52, 53, 53/187, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 & 68 situated at Village Jagatsharwanpura, Patwar Halka Muhana, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur recorded in the revenue record in the Khatedari of Mandir Shri Narsingh Ji Virajman. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite submitting a representation and serving legal notice upon the respondents including the District Collector, Jaipur, no steps have been taken to remove the encroachment over the land of Mandir Shri Narsingh Ji Virajman which is their statutory obligation. He submits that the respondents be directed to take immediate action for removal of the encroachment over the land of Mandir Shri Narsingh Ji Virajman. Heard. Considered. On perusal of the material on record, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has already submitted a representation as also served legal notice upon the respondents including the District Collector, Jaipur apprising them of encroachment over the land of Mandir Shri Narsingh Ji Virajman. It is trite law that the District Collector is bound to remove the encroachment over the land of Mandir Shri Narsingh Ji Virajman. A coordinate Bench of this Court has, in the case of Pawan Meena versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SB Civil Writ Petition No.1665/2024 decided on 02.02.2024, held as under:- “Therefore, by assiduously addressing the grievance put forth by the aggrieved employees and acting as first responders, the State can very well do [2025:RJ-JP:25179] (3 of 5) [CW-7951/2025] itself a favour and reduce the litigation before it substantially. It goes without saying that the State is patently/obviously not under the responsibility to address the representations positively in favour of the aggrieved-employees. Rather, the only requirement it ought to fulfill is that of providing an ear to their grievance, and thereafter pass appropriate speaking orders in compliance of the principles of natural justice, which may or may not address the aggrieved employee’s concerns to their liking. However, by said the careful consideration of the representations received by the State, even if a fraction of the grievance(s) are resolved, of which the cost is born by the State exchequer as well as the litigating employees, the litigation before the Courts wherein the State is a party shall reduce immensely. Even otherwise, the State must take-away/embody the spirit of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and make a genuine attempt to redress the employee’s grievances by way of speaking orders, passed in response to the representations so preferred by them. It also goes without saying that rendering the representations preferred by the aggrieved employees mute, by way of non-consideration by the State, is reflective of conduct unbecoming of government servants who are tasked with the noble responsibility to serve the citizens, including the State employees, [2025:RJ-JP:25179] (4 of 5) [CW-7951/2025] and maintain their confidence in the State. By merely adjudicating upon representations, the State shall not only lend itself a helping hand, but also extend the same courtesy to the litigants, Courts/Tribunals and also the State Exchequer, by way of reducing litigation costs. In this regard, Chief Secretary for the State is directed to issue instructions to the State instrumentalities to consider the representations of aggrieved parties and dispose of the same by way of speaking orders, so that frivolous/uncalled for litigation is cut-down before the already exceedingly over-burdened courts. Resultantly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondent-State is directed to pay due and timely heed to the representation preferred by the petitioner on 23.08.2023 and thereafter, pass a speaking order within a period of 30 days. It is expected that the principles of natural justice shall be adhered with. In terms of the directions noted above, the instant petition is disposed of.” In the backdrop of aforesaid precedential law, in view of the nature and controversy involved in the matter and the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of without issuing notices to the [2025:RJ-JP:25179] (5 of 5) [CW-7951/2025] respondents with a direction to the District Collector, Jaipur to take conscious decision upon the representation dated 23.03.2025 and/or the legal notice dated 02.04.2025 and to take necessary action for removal of the encroachment over the land of Mandir Shri Narsingh Ji Virajman, if any, in accordance with law. The requisite exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order after providing opportunity of hearing to all the affected/interested parties. Stay application and pending application(s) (if any) also stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /66