Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 46333 (RAJ)

GOPAL LAL MEENA SON OF LATE SHRI MOHAN LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/17244/2025 · 2025-11-13

Sanjeet Purohit

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:45718] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17244/2025 Gopal Lal Meena Son Of Late Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Devli Gaon, Tehsil Devli, District Tonk (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj). 2. The District Collector, Tonk (Raj). 3. Tehsildar, Tehsil Devli, District Tonk (Raj). 4. Sub Divisional Officer, Devli, District Tonk (Raj). 5. Kailash Son Of Jagdish, Resident Of Village Devpura, Tehsil Devli, District Tonk (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Khowal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 13/11/2025 1. Counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court stating that in relation to the encroachment being made by a private party, a complaint was already submitted in the office District Collector, Tonk. Vide order dated 30.12.2024, District Collector, Tonk, directed the SDO Deoli, to take appropriate action, however, till date, no action upon the said communication dated 30.12.2024 is being taken. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner will be satisfied if the appropriate direction is given to the respondent authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:45718] (2 of 2) [CW-17244/2025] 3. In view of statement so made by the counsel for petitioner, this writ petition is disposed with at liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to District Collector, Tonk, within ten days, who will decide the same while granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and take appropriate required action. 4. It is made clear that directions in this order shall not be construed to decide the petitioner’s representation in a particular way and the action is required to be taken in accordance with law. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J PAYAL DHAWAN /26