[2026:RJ-JP:3053-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. PIL Petition No. 14678/2025 1. Kishan Saini D/o Dallaram Saini, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village Saini Pura, Post Akoda, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur. 2. Nanu Ram Saini S/o Dunga Ram Saini, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Village Sainipura, Post Akoda, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur 3. Ganesh Ram Jat S/o Panchu Ram Jat, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village Palwas, Post Akoda, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur. 4. Jagga Ram Verma S/o Nanu Ram, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village Palwas, Post Akoda, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur. 5. Dev Karan Gurjar S/o Banna Ram Gujar, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village Palwas, Post Akoda, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur. 6. Lala Ram Gujar S/o Kalyan Mal Gujar, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Palwas, Post Akoda, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Principal Secretary To Government, Revenue (Group-I) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 3. District Collector Jaipur, District Jaipur, Raj. 4. Tehsildar, Phulera Office, Sambar Lake, District Jaipur, Raj. 5. Akd Palwas Estate Pvt. Ltd., Through Proprietor Mohan Lal R/o 91 Shree Vihar, Behind Hotel Clarks Amber, J.l.n Marg, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Saini [2026:RJ-JP:3053-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-14678/2025] For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma and Ms. Anzum Parveen Mr. Mihir Katta with Mr. R.K. Paliwal Ms. Shikha Sharma,AAAG HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 22/01/2026 1. The petitioners had preferred the present Public Interest Litigation challenging the action of the respondents, who were allegedly proceeding with the allotment of government land situated in Village Sainipura, comprised in Khasra No. 313/01 admeasuring 9.7619 hectares, and Khasra No. 314/13 situated in Village Palwas admeasuring 2.9210 hectares to respondent No. 5 on the ground that the said land consists of mountains and nalas, and there is no sufficient government land available in the village for the expansion of the village office and to meet the needs of the growing population. 2. Learned counsel, at the time of admission, had pointed out that the report prepared by the concerned Tehsildar was misleading. In the earlier report dated 17.06.2025, the Tehsildar had ascertained that the land could not be allotted but in the subsequent report dated 30.06.2025, it was stated that the land could be allotted. Resultantly, we issued notice and directed the learned Additional Advocate General to ensure presence of concerned Tehsildar in the Court and to file an affidavit giving out reasons for the change in the report. 3. The concerned Tehsildar remained present in the Court on the next date and explained the reasons by stating that there is a [2026:RJ-JP:3053-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-14678/2025] small hill and the land can be allotted, so far as nala is concerned, that was only rain water flowing. Being satisfied, we had closed the proceedings against the Tehsildar on 18.12.2025. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner was allowed to file rejoinder. 4. Rejoinder has been filed and we have perused the rejoinder. 5. We find that the argument being raised by the petitioners is that the land should not be allotted as all the villagers of the area do not want the allotment to be given for the purpose of resort and golf course. However, this is not a legally sustainable ground. The report has been made in favour of respondent No.5. 6. Having noticed the contentions of the rejoinder, we find that so far as public interest is concerned, we have already examined the said aspect regarding two reports and satisfy from the affidavit filed by the concerned Tehsildar. As regards public opinion relating to not allowing the set up of resort in the area is concerned, the same cannot be treated as an issue to be examined by us while hearing a Public Interest Litigation. 7. If there is any resentment among the people, the same has to be addressed only through their public representatives before the appropriate forum and not before this Court in a Public Interest Litigation. 8. The PIL is accordingly dismissed. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Simple Kumawat /29