[2025:RJ-JP:28284] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10761/2025 1. Suresh Kumar S/o Ganpat, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Village Makro, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 2. Pratap Singh S/o Onkarmal, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of Village Makro, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 3. Charan Singh S/o Foolaram, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Village Makro, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 4. Deendayal S/o Moolaram (Mulchand), Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Village Makro, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 5. Mohan S/o Makkhan Lal, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Village Makro, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 6. Vijay Singh S/o Gokulram, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Village Makro, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The District Collector, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) 3. Tehsildar, Singhana, Distt. Jhunjhunu ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Nikhil Saini JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/07/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow the writ petition and by an [2025:RJ-JP:28284] (2 of 4) [CW-10761/2025] appropriate writ of mandamus, order or direction in nature thereof: i) The respondents be restrained from demolishing the residential houses of the petitioners situated in Khasra No.679 in Village Makro district Jhunjhunu without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and deciding the same in accordance with law. ii) Any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts nd circumstances of the case also be passed in favour of humble petitioners along with cost of writ petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the notice under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short,”the Act of 1956”) was issued to the petitioners by Sub- Tehsildar, Singhana on 23.05.2024 for encroachment on Khasra No.679, calling upon the petitioners to submit their reply before him on 19.06.2024. Counsel submits that a day before the fixed date, i.e., on 18.06.2024, the order impugned under Section 91 of the Act of 1956 has been passed against the petitioners on 18.06.2024 treating the petitioners as encroacher on the said land and accordingly, the orders of his eviction/ ejectment has been passed. 3. Counsel submits that there was no reason or occasion available with the Sub-Tehsildar to pass an order in a day advance to 19.06.2024 for which the case was posted for getting the response of the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:28284] (3 of 4) [CW-10761/2025] 4. Counsel submits that the petitioners appeared before the Sub-Tehsildar on 19.06.2024, but in the order dated 18.06.2024, it has been noted that in spite of service, the petitioners have failed to submit their reply. Counsel submits that the note appended to the aforesaid notesheet/ ordersheet clearly indicates that the petitioners have not appeared before or on 18.06.2024 rather he appeared before him on 19.06.2024, hence, under these circumstances, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners and an ex-parte order has been passed against the petitioner, which has violated the principles of natural justice. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the argument put forward by learned counsel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that as per the notice dated 23.05.2024 issued to the petitioners under Section 91 of the Act of 1956, the petitioners were supposed to appear before the Sub- Tehsildar on 19.06.2024, but a day before, i.e., on 18.06.2024, the order impugned has been passed, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. It is settled proposition of law that before passing any adverse order against a person, at least an opportunity is required to be given, but herein the instant case, such opportunity has not been provided to the petitioners and straightaway, the order impugned has been passed which has violated the principles of natural justice. [2025:RJ-JP:28284] (4 of 4) [CW-10761/2025] 8. On this count alone, the impugned order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the Sub-Tehsildar, Singhana is not sustained and is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set-aside. The matter is remitted to the Sub-Tehsildar to decide the same afresh, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 11. Needless to observe, the fresh order would be passed, after hearing the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /51