[2026:RJ-JP:1479-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11296/2015 1. Girraj Meena son of Shri Durga Prasad, aged about 53 years, resident of Village-Mohanpura, Tehsil-Kotputali, District Jaipur (Raj.). 2. Arvind son of Shri Dhansi Ram Yadav, aged about 33 years, resident of Village-Mohanpura, Tehsil-Kotputali, District-Jaipur (Raj.). 3. Ashok Yadav son of Shri Hari Ram Yadav, aged about 33 years, resident of Village-Mohanpura, Tehsil-Kotputali, District- Jaipur (Raj.). 4. Lal Chand Yadav son of Shri Matadeen, son of Shri Durga Prasad, resident of Village-Mohanpura, Tehsil-Kotputali, District- Jaipur (Raj.). 5. Ashok Kumar son of Shri Chauth Mal Meena, resident of Village-Mohanpura, Tehsil-Kotputali, District-Jaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. District Collector, District-Jaipur (Raj.). 3. Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Tehsil-Kotputali, District Alwar (Raj.). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Yadav For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 13/01/2026 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: [2026:RJ-JP:1479-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-11296/2015] “(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be restrained from constructing the drainage over the khatedari land in Khasra Nos.357, 358, 359, 364 and 366 Village: Mohanpura; Tehsil: Kotputli, Jaipur; (ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the report dated 21.6.2015 as far as it suggests construction of drain over the khatedari land in Khasra Nos.357, 358, 359, 364 and 366 Village: Mohanpura, Tehsil: Kotputali, District; Jaipur may kindly be quashed and set-aside and also all consequential proceedings in regard to the same; (iii) Any other writ, order or direction which your lordships may deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioners may also be passed in the interest of justice; (iv) Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” The petitioners have challenged the construction of drainage by the respondents. We have perused the record. This writ petition is pending since the year 2015 and no interim order has been passed by this Court while issuing notices. In our considered view, by efflux of time, this writ petition has become infructuous. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. All the pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J KUD/19