[2025:RJ-JP:23459] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9463/2025 Abdul Salam S/o Late Moinuddin, Aged About 69 Years, R/o House No.3859-A, Kalyan Ji Ka Rasta, Panchva Chauraha, Near Niyariyon Ki Masjid, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The District Collector, Collectorate, Banipark, Jaipur 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Kishanpole Zone, Nagar Nigam Jaipur Heritage, Jaipur. 5. The Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Jaipur Heritage, Jaipur. 6. The Junior Engineer, Kishanpole Zone, Nagar Nigam Jaipur Heritage, Jaipur. 7. The Assistant Town Planner, Kishanpole Zone, Jaipur. 8. Mayor, Nagar Nigam Heritage, Jaipur. 9. Aftab Qureshi @ Guddu S/o Late Salim Qureshi, R/o House No. A-3795, Behind Nagina Masjid, Kalyan Ji Ka Rasta, Chowkdi Topkhana Desh, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. 10. Mohd. Parvez Khan, Registered Draftsman, Nagar Nigam License Holder, 4534, Ghora Nikas Road, Ramganj, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Annu Parnami For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL (V.J.) Order 24/06/2025 1. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by the petitioner, raising a grievance that the respondent No.9-Aftab Qureshi is inclined to raise construction/ encroachment over the Government way/ road situated in the north side of petitioner's Plot bearing [2025:RJ-JP:23459] (2 of 2) [CW-9463/2025] No.3859-A, Kalyan Ji ka Rasta, Panchva Chauraha, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. During course of arguments, it has transpired that petitioner has already filed a civil suit against the private respondent No.9, wherein the injunction order dated 23.05.2025 has been passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan II. Indisputably, the subject matter of dispute raised in the instant writ petition is also included in the civil suit which has been admitted by the counsel for petitioner, as well. 2. Counsel for petitioner, having argued the writ petition for some time and having instructions from petitioner, does not press the present writ petition with liberty to pursue his grievance in the pending civil suit. 3. In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed as not press with the liberty as prayed for. 4. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL (V.J.)), J RONAK JAIMAN/211