Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23527 (RAJ)

RAJESH SINGH AND ANR v. STATE OF RAJ AND ORS

CW/13205/2017 · 2025-03-19

Sudesh Bansal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:12488] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13205/2017 1. Rajesh Singh Son Of Brij Vasi, Resident Of Village Rajpur Post Tulsipura Tehsil Karauli Distt Karauli Raj. 2. Ramniwas Gurjar Son Of Mangilal, Resident Of Village Rajpur Post Tulsipura Tehsil Karauli District Karauli Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jan Path, Jaipur 2. District Collector, Karauli. 3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sub-Division Karauli 4. Tehsildar, Karauli 5. Superintendent Of Police, Kaurauli 6. Dhansingh Son Of Dhalleram 7. Mahar Singh Son Of Srilal 8. Kansingh Son Of Srilal 9. Janak Singh Son Of Srilal 10. Rameshwar Son Of Sardar 11. Seeshram Son Of Sardar 12. Maharaj Singh Son Of Gurjarmal 13. Jawan Singh Son Of Harya 14. Bharat Singh Son Of Radhakishan 15. Subudhi Son Of Dhalleram, No.6 To 15 All Resident Of Old Rajpur, Beechkapura, Tehsil Karauli ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.K. Chaturvedi For Respondent(s) : Ms. Poonam Yadav for Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 19/03/2025 1. As per office report, PF and notices for private respondents have not been filed. 2. However, considering the prayer of the petitioners, and with consent of counsel for both parties, the writ petition has been heard on merits, at this stage. [2025:RJ-JP:12488] (2 of 2) [CW-13205/2017] 3. By way of instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have assailed the encroachment on the pasture land of Khasra No.218 at Village Rajpur Tehsil and District Karauli. 4. In the representation moved by the petitioners as also in the writ petition, the date of alleged encroachment has not been indicated. However, after arguing the writ petition for some time, counsel for petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. 5. In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 6. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /72