HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12322/2025 Shanti Devi W/o Sh. Satyanarayan Rajoriya, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of Abhaneri, Baswa, Dausa - Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayati Raj, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. District Collector, Dausa - Rajasthan. 3. Village Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti - Bandikui, Dausa- Rajasthan. 4. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Abhaneri, Panchayat Samiti - Bandikui, District - Dausa- Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishvas Saini for Mr. M.S. Raghav JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 25/08/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned notice dated 28.07.2025 issued by Gram Panchayat, Abhaneri, Panchayat Samiti, Bandikui District Dausa for removal of encroachment on the subject land. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that patta of the subject land was allotted to the petitioner by the concerned Gram Panchayat and now without following the due process of law the respondents are bent upon to eject the petitioner from the subject land. (2 of 2) [CW-12322/2025] 3. This Court is not going into the controversy that as to whether the petitioner is in occupation of the land in question on the basis of the valid title or he is encroacher upon the same? 4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is supposed to approach the authorities concerned, who has issued notice to the petitioner by way of filing representation along-with the relevant documents in support thereof. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. In case, any such representation is submitted by the petitioner within a period of one week from today, it is expected from the authorities concerned to look into the matter and pass reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks thereafter. 6. For a period of four weeks, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. 7. 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. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/17