Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5728 (RAJ)

DASHRATH MEENA SON OF JASRAM MEENA v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/2037/2025 · 2025-03-04

Bhuwan Goyal, Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:9348-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 2037/2025 Dashrath Meena Son of Jasram Meena, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village Sedpada, Post Hudla, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat Jaipur. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Local Bodies, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Director, Local Bodies, C-Scheme Jaipur 5. The Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Mahwa, District Dausa (Rajasthan) 6. The Administrator-Cum-Chairman, Municipal Board, Mahwa, District Dausa (Rajasthan) 7. The District Collector, Dausa, District Dausa (Rajasthan). 8. The Sub Divisional Officer, Mahwa, District Dausa (Rajasthan). 9. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa (Rajasthan). 10. Satyendra Singh Kushwah Son Of Karan Singh Kuswah, Resident Of Village Hadiya, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta Advocate with Mr. Rahul Sharma Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Shikha Sharma Advocate on behalf of Mr. G.S. Gill Additional Advocate General. [2025:RJ-JP:9348-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-2037/2025] HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 04/03/2025 1. This PIL petition has been filed by the petitioner raising a disputed issue of fact by stating that the land in dispute has been wrongly granted by way of patta by Panchayat Samiti Mahuwa, District Dausa. 2. Panchayat Samiti Mahuwa has not been impleaded as party respondent in the petition. 3. The patta, granted way back in the year 2007, records that there was pre-existing residential building since last 50 years. 4. The petition involves disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone into in this PIL petition. 5. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as may be available under the law. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ MANOJ NARWANI-ANU/13