HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12326/2025 Sharwan Kumar Mahala S/o Shri Surjaram, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Dhani Navodi Dadiyarampura, Tehsil Khandela (Present Reengus), District Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. District Collector, Sikar. 3. Sub-Division Officer, Khandela (Present Reengus), District Sikar. 4. Tehsildar, Tehsil Reengus, District Sikar. 5. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Reengus, District Sikar. 6. Assistant Engineer, PWD Division Reengus, District Sikar. 7. Village Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Khandela, District Sikar. 8. Secretary, Gram Panchayat Dadiyarampura, Panchayat Samiti Khandela, District Sikar (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sultan Singh Kuri For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/08/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of a Patta issued by the Gram Panchayat and the same has been registered by the Sub Registrar, even then, the respondents are bent upon to (2 of 3) [CW-12326/2025] demolish the construction of the petitioner and dispossess him from the subject land without following the due process of law. Counsel submits that a representation has been submitted before the respondents-authorities for redressal of his grievances, but in-spite of receipt of the same, no heed has been paid, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 2. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 3. This Court is not going into the controversy that as to whether the petitioner is having any valid right, title and interest over the subject land or he is an encroacher. It is for the authorities to look into the matter and take appropriate decision. Since the petitioner has already approached the respondents by way of filing a representation in the form of legal notice, it is expected from the respondents to decide the same after considering averments made therein by passing a reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 4. For a period of four weeks, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. 5. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not issued any order/direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in a particular way. They would be at liberty to decide the same, strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order. (3 of 3) [CW-12326/2025] 6. Needless to observe that in case, any adverse order is passed against the petitioner by the respondents, the petitioner would be at liberty approach appropriate forum of law for redressal of his grievances. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/18