[2025:RJ-JP:48324] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.9325/2024 Usha Devi Sujaka W/o Matadeen Agarwal, aged about 62 years, R/o Ward No.12, Gangouri Chowk, Mundru, District Sikar (presently District Neemkathana), (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The District Collector, Neemkathana. 3. The Sub-Division Officer, Srimadhopur, District Neemkathana. 4. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Neemkathana. 5. The Excutive Engineer, PWD Neemkathana, District Neemkathana. 6. The Assistant Engineer, PWD Neemkathana, District Neemkathana. 7. The Development Officer, Srimadhopur, District Neemkathana. 8. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Mundru, Panchayat Samiti Srimadhopur, District Neemkathana (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sultan Singh Kuri For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Tripathi, AGC Mr. Ajay Gupta with Ms. Sampti Sharma Mr. Umesh Choudhary on behalf of Mr. Vidhyadhar Gathala, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 27/11/2025 1. Although the matter has come up on Application No.2/2024 under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, yet [2025:RJ-JP:48324] (2 of 6) [CW-9325/2024] looking to the fact that pleadings are complete, this Court finds just and proper to hear and decide the instant matter finally. 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging notice dated 13.05.2024 issued by the Gram Panchayat-Mundru, Panchayat Samiti-Srimadhopur, District- Neemkathana, under Rule 165(3) of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in notice dated 13.05.2024, it has been alleged that the petitioner has encroached upon two metres wide public land, which is causing hurdle in construction/widening of State Highway No.37-C by the P.W.D., Sub-Division, Srimadhopur and the petitioner was directed to remove the encroachment within a period of ten days. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the presumption of encroachment drawn by the respondent is totally erroneous and misconceived, for the reason that earlier one patta was issued by the gram panchayat in the year 1970 in favour of one Sh. Bheru Ram S/o Chuna Ram, who subsequently sold that land to the petitioner by way of registered sale deed dated 12.06.1996. After purchasing the land through registered sale deed dated 12.06.1996, the petitioner was also issued one ‘No Objection Certificate’ by the Gram Panchayat-Mundru for raising construction over the said land. Thereafter, construction has been raised by the petitioner and in proof of construction photographs as well as bills of electricity/water connection have also been produced on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although all these documents were placed before the gram [2025:RJ-JP:48324] (3 of 6) [CW-9325/2024] panchayat along with reply to impugned notice dated 13.05.2024, yet the authorities are adamant to demolish his construction, which would cause grave prejudice and miscarriage of the justice to the petitioner. It is also submitted that even if two metre wide land from the petitioner's plot is required by the State Government then they ought to have followed due procedure contemplated under acquisition laws, however, without initiating any acquisition proceedings or without conducting any proper inquiry, the respondents are divesting the petitioner in an arbitrary manner, which is also infringing the rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the purpose of notice may be, howsoever beneficial to the public, yet the individual rights of the petitioner cannot be curtailed in arbitrary manner and he cannot be declared as encroacher over the plot of land, which has been purchased by him through registered sale deed. 7. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that reply submitted by the petitioner pursuant to impugned notice was duly considered by the gram panchayat and it was found that the petitioner has not constructed his house/shop exactly within the four corners of the patta land and has rather encroached upon the public land. It is also submitted that in this regard, due inquiry was made and decision was taken to issue final notice to the petitioner for removing the encroachment. Decision of gram panchayat dated 20.06.2024 has been placed on record. [2025:RJ-JP:48324] (4 of 6) [CW-9325/2024] 8. Learned counsels for the respondents also submits that state highway is being constructed pursuant to sanction accorded by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India under CIRF Scheme for which, budget has also been allotted. It is further submitted that after sanction of the state highway, the Assistant Engineer, PWD, Sub-Division, Srimadhopur has written one letter dated 22.04.2024 to the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat- Mondru, indicating that the width of the road would be 10 metres and, therefore, any encroachment, which is coming within the distance of 5 metres at either side from the centre of the road was required to be removed. 9. Learned counsels for the respondents further submits that after decision taken by the gram panchayat, one another notice dated 21.06.2024 has been issued to the petitioner but he has not complied with the notice and rather has issued one letter (Annexure-R-8/6), wherein it has been offered by her that instead of taking the land from front side of the petitioner's land, she was ready to surrender her other land. It is also submitted that on inquiry, it is found that NOC for construction etc. obtained by the petitioner does not match with the record of gram panchayat and veracity of such document is also under question. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that one public interest litigation, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13325/2024 was also filed before the Division Bench of this Court indicating the encroachments, which are treated as hurdle in construction of the road in village-Mundru and status report was filed by the respondent-Government before the Division Bench of [2025:RJ-JP:48324] (5 of 6) [CW-9325/2024] this Court showing that except the encroachment made by the petitioner, all other encroachments have been removed. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that as the petitioner has exceeded his construction qua the patta land, therefore, for removing such encroachments on sanctioned public road, respondents are not required to undertake any exercise of acquisition and they are equipped with sufficient power under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act and Rules made thereunder for taking coercive action for removal of the encroachment, where even on receipt of notice, the encroacher does not remove the encroachment. 12. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record. 13. Perusal of decision taken by the gram panchayat on 20.06.2024 would make it clear that the grievance of the petitioner has been duly heard and examined by the gram panchayat and after making summary inquiry, it has also come on record of the gram panchayat that the petitioner has not constructed her house/shop at the very place for which, patta was initially issued in favour of her predecessor, rather the construction is exceeding at the road side. While coming to this conclusion, even metes and bounds of the land shown in patta have also been discussed by the gram panchayat and after analyzing of all the facts, the gram panchayat has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has encroached upon some part of the public land at the road side, which is liable to be removed. 14. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has challenged the decision dated 20.06.2024 passed by the gram [2025:RJ-JP:48324] (6 of 6) [CW-9325/2024] panchayat and the proceedings thereafter. Thus, this Court does not find that there is any violation of provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution of India or even violation of principles of natural justice in the instant matter. 15. Order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13325/2024 has also been perused, which reveals that the encroachment made by the petitioner is coming in the way of construction of public road, hence, such encroachment is also against the public interest. It is also a settled proposition of law that wherever individual interest clashes with the public interest, the public interest shall prevail. 16. In the light of above, no interference is called for in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the instant petition filed by the petitioner is, hereby, dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/64-AC