[2025:RJ-JP:25798] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9872/2025 Ramesh Saini S/o Pappu Saini, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Machda, Ganesh Nagar-4, Bangar Road, Jaipur (Raj) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Secretary Jaipur Development Authority, Indira Circle, Jln Marg, Jaipur- 302004 2. Deputy Commissioner, Zone-6, Jaipur Development Authority, Indira Circle, Jln Marg, Jaipur-302004 3. Enforcement Officer, Zone-6, Jaipur Development Authority, Indira Circle, Jln Marg, Jaipur-302004 4. Suresh Saini S/o Galkha Ram Saini, Resident Of Village Machda, Ganesh-4, Bangar Road, Jaipur (Raj). 5. Shankar Saini S/o Galkha Ram Saini, Resident Of Village Machda, Ganesh Nagar-4, Bangar Road, Jaipur (Raj). 6. Kishan Saini S/o Galkha Ram Saini, Resident Of Village Machda, Ganesh Nagar-4, Bangar Road, Jaipur (Raj). 7. Sitaram Saini S/o Galkha Ram Saini, Resident Of Village Machda, Ganesh Nagar-4, Bangar Road, Jaipur, (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Chahar for Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 11/07/2025 The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the inaction of the respondents in respect of the encroachment and illegal construction on the Government land situated at Ganesh Nagar, 4th Phase Area, Nadi, near Shri Dev Darshan Mandir, Machda, Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:25798] (2 of 4) [CW-9872/2025] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some named persons have encroached over the land of the Government and raised construction. Counsel submits that in order to remove the encroachment, several representations have been filed by the petitioner before the concerned authorities but till date, no action has been taken on the representations filed by the petitioner while authorities are under the statutory obligation to take action if encroachment on the Government land is reported to them. A coordinate Bench of this Court has, in the case of Pawan Meena versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SB Civil Writ Petition No.1665/2024 decided on 02.02.2024, held as under:- “Therefore, by assiduously addressing the grievance put forth by the aggrieved employees and acting as first responders, the State can very well do itself a favour and reduce the litigation before it substantially. It goes without saying that the State is patently/obviously not under the responsibility to address the representations positively in favour of the aggrieved-employees. Rather, the only requirement it ought to fulfill is that of providing an ear to their grievance, and thereafter pass appropriate speaking orders in compliance of the principles of natural justice, which may or may not address the aggrieved employee’s concerns to their liking. However, by said the careful consideration of the representations received by the State, even if a fraction of the grievance(s) are resolved, of which the cost is born by the State exchequer as well as the litigating [2025:RJ-JP:25798] (3 of 4) [CW-9872/2025] employees, the litigation before the Courts wherein the State is a party shall reduce immensely. Even otherwise, the State must take-away/embody the spirit of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and make a genuine attempt to redress the employee’s grievances by way of speaking orders, passed in response to the representations so preferred by them. It also goes without saying that rendering the representations preferred by the aggrieved employees mute, by way of non-consideration by the State, is reflective of conduct unbecoming of government servants who are tasked with the noble responsibility to serve the citizens, including the State employees, and maintain their confidence in the State. By merely adjudicating upon representations, the State shall not only lend itself a helping hand, but also extend the same courtesy to the litigants, Courts/Tribunals and also the State Exchequer, by way of reducing litigation costs. In this regard, Chief Secretary for the State is directed to issue instructions to the State instrumentalities to consider the representations of aggrieved parties and dispose of the same by way of speaking orders, so that frivolous/uncalled for litigation is cut-down before the already exceedingly over-burdened courts. [2025:RJ-JP:25798] (4 of 4) [CW-9872/2025] Resultantly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondent-State is directed to pay due and timely heed to the representation preferred by the petitioner on 23.08.2023 and thereafter, pass a speaking order within a period of 30 days. It is expected that the principles of natural justice shall be adhered with. In terms of the directions noted above, the instant petition is disposed of.” In view of above, I deem it just and proper to direct the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before respondent No.2 with regard to the encroachment on the Government land within a period of four weeks from today. If any representation is filed by the petitioner in this regard within a period of four weeks from today, respondent No.2 is directed to initiate inquiry with regard to the encroachment on the Government land and conclude the same within a period of three months from the date of submission of the representation after giving opportunity of hearing to all the interested/affected persons. With the aforesaid directions, this civil writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and pending application(s) (if any) also stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /65