[2025:RJ-JP:25775] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16178/2024 1. Ramras Choudhary, S/o Late Shri Goru Lal Jat, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Kulwalo Ka Bas Mandi, Phagi, Mandi, Rajasthan-303005 2. Ram Lal, S/o Late Shri Ramchandra, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Kulwalo Ka Bas Mandi, Phagi, Mandi, Rajasthan-303005 ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. District Collector, Dudu, Rajasthan 3. Sub-Tehsildar, Neemeda, Dudu, Rajasthan 4. Patwari, Mandi Tehsil Phagi Dudu, Rajasthan 5. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Mandi Tehsil-Phagi, Zila Dudu, Rajasthan. 6. Ramdayal, S/o Late Shri Ramnarayan, Aged About 55 Years, Gram Mandi, Tehsil Phagi, Zila Dudu, Rajasthan 7. Ramkaran, S/o Pokhar, Aged About 75 Years, Gram Mandi, Tehsil Phagi, Zila Dudu, Rajasthan 8. Ram Gopal S/o Pokhar, Gram Mandi, Tehsil Phagi, Zila Dudu, Rajasthan 9. Laxminarayan S/o Pokhar, Aged About 95 Years, Gram Mandi, Tehsil Phagi, Zila Dudu, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ishita Rawat Mr. Aditya Bohra HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 12/07/2025 This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to remove the illegal encroachment from the government land being Khasra No. 379 situated at Gram Mandi, Patwar Halka, Mandi, Tehsil Phagi, Zila Dudu, Rajasthan as said [2025:RJ-JP:25775] (2 of 5) [CW-16178/2024] land is a charagah land which belongs to State and cannot be occupied/encroached by any private person. Counsel submits that a representation was also submitted by petitioner No.1 before the Tehsildar, Tehsil Phagi, Zila Dudu, Rajasthan thereafter, Sub- Tehsildar forwarded the said representation to Patwari, Mandi Tehsil- Phagi, Dudu to inspect the said charagah land and record its findings. Counsel submits that Patwari carried out inspection of the said land and furnished report stating therein that the charagah land has been encroached by the private respondents. Counsel submits that despite this, no steps have been taken to remove the encroachment over the land of Khasra No. 379 which is their statutory obligation. Counsel further submits that respondents be directed to take immediate action for removal of the encroachment over the land of Khasra No. 379 situated at Gram Mandi, Patwar Halka, Mandi, Tehsil Phagi, Zila Dudu, Rajasthan. Heard. Considered. On perusal of the material on record, this Court is satisfied that petitioners have already submitted a representation to the respondent-authorities apprising them of encroachment over the land of Khasra No. 379. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:25775] (3 of 5) [CW-16178/2024] 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:25775] (4 of 5) [CW-16178/2024] 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. 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 the backdrop of aforesaid precedential law, in view of the nature and controversy involved in the matter and the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this writ petition is disposed of without issuing notices to the respondents with a direction to the District Collector, Jaipur to [2025:RJ-JP:25775] (5 of 5) [CW-16178/2024] take conscious decision upon the representation dated 21.05.2025 and to take necessary action for removal of the encroachment over the land of Khasra No. 379 situated at Gram Mandi, Patwar Halka, Mandi, Tehsil Phagi, Zila Dudu, Rajasthan, in accordance with law. The requisite exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order after providing opportunity of hearing to all the affected/interested parties. Stay application and pending application(s) (if any) also stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /27