HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7931/2025 1. Bharat Kumar Soni S/o Shri Shrinath Soni, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of 77-B Mangrole Bypass Road, Baran, District Baran (Raj.) 2. Krishna Kumar Soni S/o Shri Shrinath Soni, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of 77-B Mangrole Bypass Road, Baran, District Baran (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Local Self, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The Chief Executive Officer/commissioner, Municipal Council, Baran (Raj.) 3. The District Collector, Baran, Collectorate Baran (Raj.) 4. The Project Director, Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation Ltd., Setu Bhawan Opposite Jhalana Doongari, Jaipur- Agra Bypass, Jaipur. 5. Chief Engineer And Additional Secretary, Public Works Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 6. M/s. Amit Construction, Through Its Proprietor Amit Rohada, 709-A, Pratap Nagar, Cad Circle, Dada Bari, Kota (Raj.)-324009 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma with Mr. Manan Sharma For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/05/2025 (2 of 3) [CW-7931/2025] 1. Counsel submits that for widening the road, the respondents are bent upon for taking possession of the petitioners’ land. Counsel submits that the petitioners are in possession of valid patta issued by the Municipal Council, Baran. Counsel submits that without following the due process of law, the respondents cannot be allowed to take possession of the petitioners’ land. Counsel submits that before approaching this Court, a representation as well as notice for demand of justice was served in the office of the respondents, but without paying any heed to the same, the respondents are bent upon to take possession of the petitioners’ land, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 2. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the representation/notice for demand of justice has been served by the petitioners in the office of the respondents, it is expected from the respondents to decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 3. Considering the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing directions to the respondents to decide the representation/notice for demand of justice of the petitioners after providing them an opportunity of hearing by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 4. For a period of five weeks, no coercive action be taken against the petitioners. (3 of 3) [CW-7931/2025] 5. In case, the petitioners feel aggrieved by any adverse order passed against them, they would be at liberty to assail the same before appropriate forum of law. 6. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/435