Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1128 (RAJ)

BHAGWAN SAHAYA SON OF LATE SHRICHITTAR v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/5746/2026 · 2026-03-30

Anuroop Singhi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:13288] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5746/2026 1. Bhagwan Sahaya Son Of Late Shrichittar, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of 25, Badh Devari, Sector-7, Shipra Path, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. Shankar Lal Son Of Late Shri Chittar, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of 25, Badh Devari, Sector-7, Shipra Path, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 3. Roopnarayan Son Of Late Shri Chittar, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of 25, Badh Devari, Sector-7, Shipra Path, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 4. Smt. Laxmi Devi Wife Of Suwalal, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of 51, Badh Devari, Sector-7, Shipra Path, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan Housing Board, Through Its Chairman, Awas Bhawan, Jan Path, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 3. Secretary, Rajasthan Housing Board, Awas Bhawan, Jan Path, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satish Khandelwal Mr. Vikram Beniwal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 30/03/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: [2026:RJ-JP:13288] (2 of 2) [CW-5746/2026] “(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, and the respondents may kindly be directed to issue allotment letters of 15% developed land against acquisition of khatedari land of the petitioners (petitioners are having 1/16 share in khasara no. 369 and 1/8 share in khasara no. 371 & 372, total measuring about 5 bigha 11 biswa of land) and issue the allotment letters accordingly; (ii) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners” 2. Mr. Satish Khandelwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, has confined his submission to the extent that a direction be issued to respondent No.3 to decide the application dated 10.11.2025 filed by the petitioner seeking compensation in lieu of their acquired land. 3. Taking note of the above and without delving into the merits, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to decide the application dated 10.11.2025 submitted by the petitioners within a period of fifteen days from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law. 4. Accordingly, with the above directions, the present writ petition is disposed of. 5. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DIPESH CHAYAL /09