[2025:RJ-JP:26292] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7648/2025 Bimla W/o Satyanarayan, aged about 47 Years, R/o Brahman Mohalla, Bhoorla, Bassi, District Jaipur 303004 (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Revenue Department Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005 2. The Jaipur Collector, Collectrate Building, Banipark, District Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Tooga, Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.) 4. The Tehsildar of Tunga, Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sandeep Kumar JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 15/07/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordships may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and following direction may please be issued:- 1. Considering above mentioned facts and circumstances direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to remove, demolished on the principal of parity to the Tehsildar, Tonga. All encroachment on the land of Khasra No.44, [2025:RJ-JP:26292] (2 of 3) [CW-7648/2025] charagah land situated at Village Bhoorla, Tehsil Toonga, Bassi, District Jaipur. 2. Any other appropriate orders or directions which this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction for giving equal treatment to all person who were in occupation of land bearing Khasra No.44 situated at Village Bhoorla, Tehsil Toonga, Bassi, District Jaipur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this fact is not in dispute that the aforesaid land is a pasture land, but the petitioner is in possession over the same, since time immemorial, by raising construction over the same. Counsel submits that several persons are in occupation of the same land, by way of raising their respective construction, but the respondents have adopted a selective approach and has demolished the construction of the petitioner. Counsel submits that appropriate orders are required to be passed in such like situation. 4. It is the settled proposition of law that a pasture land cannot be allotted to anyone unless the nature of such land is converted into abadi land. It appears that the petitioner is in possession of some part of the pasture land along-with other persons, but the respondents have targeted the petitioner alone by removing her construction from the subject land. 5. This fact was brought into the notice of the authorities by the petitioner, by way of filing representation on 20.11.2024, but it appears that said representation submitted by the petitioner has [2025:RJ-JP:26292] (3 of 3) [CW-7648/2025] not been decided by the authorities concerned by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 6. This Court is not going into the controversy involved in the present writ petition as it is within the domain of the respondents to take action against the encroachers on the pasture land. 7. Keeping in view the fact petitioner has submitted a representation before the authorities for redressal of her grievances and representation is still lying pending for its adjudication on merits. This Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition by issuing direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any also stand disposed of. 9. Before parting with the order, it is made clear that this Court has not issued any direction/ order to the respondents to decide the pending representation of the petitioner in a particular way. They would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /21