[2025:RJ-JP:34520] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13000/2025 Vijay Kumar Khosla S/o Late Harendra Khosla, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Radhavihari Road, Mohalla- Taliya, Dholpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Urban Development And Housing Department, Office At Food Building, 1St Floor, Secretariat, Jaipur- 302015 (Rajasthan) India. 2. Nagar Parishad, Dholpur, Through Commissioner, Machkund Road, Dholpur, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Sharma Saraswat Mr. Himanshu Singh Chauhan Mr. Sahil Parashar For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/08/2025 1. Defect(s) pointed out by the office stands waived. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is occupant of the subject land on the basis of the valid documents of their title over the subject land. Counsel submits that in some of the matter entries have been made by the Competent Court in the relevant record and in some of the matters pattas have been issued and thereafter, the permissions were granted to the petitioner to raise the constructions. Counsel submits that without issuing any notice, the respondents have initiated the demolition drive by marking the shops of the petitioner without following the [2025:RJ-JP:34520] (2 of 3) [CW-13000/2025] due process of law. Counsel submits that the petitioner has already raised their grievance before the respondents authorities by way of filing a representation in the form of legal notice but without paying any heed and without deciding the same, the respondents are bent upon to take action against the petitioner. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. This Court is not going into the merits of the matter whether the petitioner is occupant of the subject land on the basis of the valid title over the same or not, or whether the petitioner has encroached upon the subject land or not but looking to the fact that the respondents are taking action against the petitioner without issuing any notice and without deciding the representation submitted by the petitioner in the form of legal notice. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the respondents are expected to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order before taking any adverse action against him. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondents to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 7. For a period of four weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. 8. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. [2025:RJ-JP:34520] (3 of 3) [CW-13000/2025] 9. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not issued any direction/order to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in a particular way, the respondents would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 10. Needless to observe that in case, any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, he would be at liberty to assail the same before the appropriate forum of law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/232