[2025:RJ-JP:34356] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8621/2025 1. Sahjad Son of Shri Umardaraj, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Salpura, Atru, District Baran, Rajasthan. 2. Umardaraj Son of Ghansi Khan, Aged About 82 Years, R/o Salpura, Atru, District Baran, Rajasthan. 3. Ajij Khan Son of Shri Ghansi, R/o Atru, Tehsil Atru, District Baran, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Panchayati Raj Department Through Its Principal Secretary. 2. Gram Panchayat Khyavda, Panchayat Samiti Kishanganj Through Its Administrator. 3. Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat Khyavda, Panchayat Samiti Kishanganj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.N. Sharma Mr. Avadhesh Meena Mr. Kuldeep Bhatia Mr. Pankaj Chaudhary For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/08/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned notice dated 22.04.2025 issued by the Gram Panchayat Khyavda by which the petitioners have been called upon to remove their encroachment from the subject land. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are having valid title over the subject land. Counsel submits that as per the revenue record, the petitioners are the recorded Khatedars and without acquiring the land of the petitioners, the respondents cannot be allowed to construct a road on the land of the petitioners. Counsel submits that a detailed reply to the aforesaid [2025:RJ-JP:34356] (2 of 2) [CW-8621/2025] notice was given by the petitioners to the respondents but without paying any heed in the matter, the respondents are proceeding further with the construction of the road. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. This Court is not going into the controversy as to whether the petitioners are having valid title over the subject property or not or whether they encroached upon the subject land or not but looking to the fact that reply to the notice has already been submitted by the petitioners immediately. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the matter is required to be examined by the respondents by deciding the reply/representation submitted by the petitioners strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 6. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing a direction to the respondents to decide the representation/reply of the petitioners expeditiously as early as possible within a period of fifteen days from today. 7. For a period of fifteen days, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. 8. Needful to observe that this Court has not issued any direction/order to the respondents to decide the representation/reply of the petitioners in a particular way, the respondents would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/1