[2025:RJ-JP:22356] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8423/2025 Laxmi Narayan Meena S/o Mana Ram Meena, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Kharad, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. District Collector, Jaipur Rural (Raj.) 3. Superintendent of Police, Jaipur Rural (Raj.) 4. Sub-Divisional Officer Jamwa Ramgarh, District Jaipur (Raj.) 5. Tehsildar, Andhi, District Jaipur (Raj.) 6. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Andhi, District Jaipur 7. Sho, P.s. Andhi, District Jaipur Rural (Raj.) 8. Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Bhaawni, Panchayat Samiti Jamwa Ramgarh District Jaipur Rural (Raj.) 9. Secretary Gram Panchayat Bhaawni, Tehsil Andhi District Jaipur Rural (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Tanay Jain JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/05/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents not to demolish his house situated in Khasra No.340 Village Kharad, Tehsil Andhi District Jaipur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a patta has been issued by the Gram Panchayat Bhawani, Panchayat Samiti [2025:RJ-JP:22356] (2 of 3) [CW-8423/2025] Jamwa Ramgarh, District Jaipur to the petitioner in the year 2001, hence, he is having valid title and possession over the land in question, but without issuing any notice, without following the due process of law and without affording any opportunity of hearing, the respondents are bent upon to remove the construction of the petitioner, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. The documents submitted by the petitioner does not indicate that the patta was issued to the petitioner for any part of the land bearing Khasra No.340 situated at Kharad, since the disputed question of facts are involved, hence, the same cannot be adjudicated by this Court under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Keeping in view, the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation along-with the documents in support of his contentions before the respondents, within a period of one week from today. The respondents are further directed to consider the same and pass reasoned and speaking order within a period of one week thereafter. In case, the respondents find that the petitioner is having valid title over the land in question and still his land is required by them, then due process of law shall be followed. 5. In case, the respondents comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is an encroacher upon the land in question, then they would at liberty to proceed in accordance with the process of law. 6. For a period of four weeks, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:22356] (3 of 3) [CW-8423/2025] 7. It goes without saying that if any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, he would at liberty to approach the appropriate forum of law. 8. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /255