HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14267/2025 1. Dinesh Kumar Sharma Son Of Late Shri Radhakrishan Alias Radhakishan Sharma, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Village Khatushyam Ji, Ward No.4, Khatu, Khatushyam Ji, District Sikar (Rajasthan)-332602 2. Rama Kant Sharma Son Of Late Shri Radhakrishan Alias Radhakishan Sharma, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of Village Khatushyam Ji, Ward No.4, Khatu, Khatushyam Ji, District Sikar (Rajasthan)-332602 3. Rajneesh Kumar Sharma Son Of Late Shri Radhakrishan Alias Radhakishan Sharma, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Village Khatushyam Ji, Ward No.4, Khatu, Khatushyam Ji, District Sikar (Rajasthan)-332602 4. Pawan Kumar Sharma Son Of Late Shri Radhakrishan Alias Radhakishan Sharma, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Village Khatushyam Ji, Ward No.4, Khatu, Khatushyam Ji, District Sikar (Rajasthan)-332602 ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Local Self Government Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. The District Collector, District Sikar (Raj.) 4. Municipal Corporation, Through Its Administrator, Khatushyamji, Sikar (Rajasthan) 5. The Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Khatooshyamji, Sikar (Rajasthan) ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14266/2025 1. Rama Kant Sharma, Aged About 68 Years, Son Of Late Shri Radhakrishan Alias Radhakishan Sharma 2. Rajneesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 65 Years, Son Of Late Shri Radhakrishan Alias Radhakishan Sharma 3. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 62 Years, Son Of Late Shri Radhakrishan Alias Radhakishan Sharma 4. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Aged About 45 Years, Son Of Late Shri Radhakrishan Alias Radhakishan Sharma, All Are Resident Of Village Khatushyam Ji, Ward No.4, Khatu, Khatushyam Ji, District Sikar (Rajasthan)-332602 ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Local Self Government Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. The District Collector, District Sikar (Raj.) 4. Municipal Corporation, Through Its Administrator, Khatushyamji, Sikar (Rajasthan) 5. The Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Khatooshyamji, Sikar (Rajasthan) ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14294/2025 Parwati Devi W/o Om Prakash Harnathka, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Khatoo, Sikar, Rajasthan-332602. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Department, Jaipur-302005. 2. District Collector, Sikar, Sikar Collector Office, Court Road, Sikar, 332001. 3. Executive Officer, Municipality Khatushyamji, District Sikar 332602. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14297/2025 Puran Mal Harnathka S/o Late Shri Ganpat Lal Harnathka, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Ward No. 19, Ganpati Nagar, Khatoo, Khatushyamji, Danta Ramgarh Sikar, Rajasthan- 332602. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur-302005. 2. District Collector, Sikar, Sikar Collector Office, Court Road, Sikar, 332001. 3. Executive Officer, Municipality Khatushyamji, District Sikar, 332602. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14300/2025 1. Rajendra Kumar Patwari S/o Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Ward No.09, Khatushyamji, Khatoo, Sikar, Rajasthan- 332602 2. Ashok Kumar Mittal S/o Hari Prasad, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Khatoo, Sikar, Rajasthan- 332602 3. Santosh Kumar Patwari, S/o Hanuman Baksh, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Shyam Mahal Dharamshala Ke Paas, Khatoo, Sikar, Rajasthan- 332602 ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur-302005. 2. District Collector, Sikar, Sikar Collector Office, Court Road, Sikar, 332001. 3. Executive Officer, Municipality Khatushyamji, District Sikar, 332602. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14301/2025 Barkat Bano, W/o Ilahi Bakhs Teli, Aged About 84 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Khatoo, Sikar, Rajasthan- 332602 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur-302005. 2. District Collector, Sikar, Sikar Collector Office, Court Road, Sikar, 332001. 3. Executive Officer, Municipality Khatushyamji, District Sikar, 332602. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14303/2025 1. Kedar Mal Agarwal S/o Ganpat Lal, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Khatoo, Sikar, Khatushyamjika, Rajasthan- 332602 2. Mukesh Kumar Gupta S/o Ganpat Lal Gupta, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Kabutar Chouk, Khatoo, Sikar, Rajasthan- 332602 3. Suresh Kumar Agarwal S/o Ganpat Lal Agrawal, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Ward No. 19, Manda Road Near Anaj Mandi, Khatoo, Sikar, Rajasthan- 332602 4. Puran Mal Agarwal S/o Ganpat Lal Agrawal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Ward No. 19, Ganpati Nagar, Khatoo, Khatushyamji, Danta Ramgarh Sikar, Rajasthan- 332602 5. Govardhan Lal Agarwal S/o Ganpat Lal, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Ward No.4, Khatushyam Ji, Khatoo, Sikar, Rajasthan- 332602 6. Sitaram Agarwal S/o Ganpat Lal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Mandha Road Ward No. 19, Mandhi Ke Pichhe, Khatoo, Sikar, Rajasthan- 332602 ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur-302005. 2. District Collector, Sikar, Sikar Collector Office, Court Road, Sikar, 332001. 3. Executive Officer, Municipality Khatushyamji, District Sikar, 332602. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14179/2025 Sunil Agarwal @ Munna Agarwal S/o Sh. Maliram Agarwal, Aged About 51 Years, R/o V And P Khatu Shyam Ji, Ward No. 9, Tehsil Dataram Garh, Distt. Sikar, Rajasthan Pin - 332602 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Local Self Government, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. The District Collector, Sikar. 3. The Sub. Divisional Magistrate (Sdm), Khatu Shyam Ji, Tehsil Dataramgarh, Distt. Sikar 4. Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Mandal, Khatu Shyam Ji, Tehsil Dataramgarh, Distt. Sikar ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14295/2025 Shankar Lal Sharma S/o Late Hariprashad Sharma, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Khatoo, Sikar, Khatushyamjika, Rajasthan-332602. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur-302005. 2. District Collector, Sikar, Sikar Collector Office, Court Road, Sikar, 332001. 3. Executive Officer, Municipality Khatushyamji, District Sikar 332602. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14296/2025 Naresh Sharma S/o Radheyshyam Sharma, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Ward No. 9, Mennon Ka Mohalla, Khatushyamji, Dataramgarh, Sikar, Rajasthan-332602 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur-302005 2. District Collector, Sikar, Sikar Collector Office, Court Road, Sikar, 332001. 3. Executive Officer, Municipality Khatushyamji, District Sikar 332602. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14298/2025 1. Kedar Mal Swami S/o Dwarika Prasad Swami, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Ward No. 8 Khatushyam, Khatoo, Sikar, Rajasthan, 332602. 2. Puroshotam Swami S/o Dwarka Prasad Swami, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Ward No. 8 Near Shyam Temple, Khatushyamji, Khatoo, Sikar, Rajasthan- 332602. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur-302005. 2. District Collector, Sikar, Sikar Collector Office, Court Road, Sikar, 332001. 3. Executive Officer, Municipality Khatushyamji, District Sikar, 332602. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14299/2025 1. Banwari Lal Puniya S/o Shankar Lal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ward No.13, Khatu, Sikar, Rajasthan- 332602. 2. Kalu Ram Poonia S/o Shankar Lal Poonia, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Ward No. 13, Khatu, Sikar, Rajasthan- 332602 ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur-302005. 2. District Collector, Sikar, Sikar Collector Office, Court Road, Sikar, 332001. 3. Executive Officer, Municipality Khatushyamji, District Sikar, 332602. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14302/2025 Ballu Khan S/o Husain Khan, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Bajar Mohalla Ward No.9, Khatoo, Sikar, Rajasthan- 332602. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur-302005. 2. District Collector, Sikar, Sikar Collector Office, Court Road, Sikar, 332001. 3. Executive Officer, Municipality Khatushyamji, District Sikar, 332602. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15538/2025 Ramesh Kumar Modi S/o Lt. Mal Chand, Aged About 51 Years, R/o House No. 116, Haldipokhar, Haludpukhur, East Singhbhum, Jharkhand-831002 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur-302005 2. District Collector, Sikar, Sikar Collector Office, Court Road, Sikar, 332001. 3. Executive Officer, Municipality Khatushyamji, District Sikar, 332602. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Kasliwal with Ms. Gauri Jasna and Mr. Shubham Bhati Mr. Akshay Sharma with Mr. Sparsh Bansal Ms. Priya Rastogi for Mr. Ankur Rastogi For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG with Mr. Manoj Chaudhary and Ms. Pooja Dixit and Mr. Yadvendra Patel HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 16/01/2026 1. The present batch of writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners assailing the action of the respondents of issuance of impugned orders/notices, vide which the petitioners have been directed to remove their respective constructions raised on the approach roads to the Khatushyam ji temple, so as to widen the said road to 40 feet as per the Master Plan - 2041, failing which the same will be demolished by the respondents at the costs of the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Prateek Kasliwal, Mr. Akshay Sharma and Ms. Priya Rastogi, submit that the petitioners have legal title over the land and under no circumstances they can be considered as encroachers so as to demolish the construction raised by them on their land. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the impugned notices/orders are self-contradictory, as while it itself acknowledges the issuance of pattas by the Municipal Council on the land which falls within the width of 40 feet road, it simultaneously requires the petitioners to remove their constructions made upon the same. Learned counsel also submits that any construction made by them on their land for which they hold a valid patta cannot be demolished in the said manner, much less by holding them to be an encroacher. 4. Learned Counsel further submits that no opportunity of hearing has been provided to them prior to issuance of the impugned directions which is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment dated 24.04.2018 passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12891 of 2016 titled as Om Prakash Raigar and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. alongwith other connected matters wherein dealing with the similar controversy, the Court has issued the following directions:- “We do not find writ petitions to be maintainable as remedy can appropriately be taken before the revenue or civil Court. However, while disposing of the writ petitions, it needs to be clarified that the public notice be effected on those who have encroached the land. If the petitioners demonstrate their right in the land then appropriate order can be passed and for that the order dated 31.8.2016 would not come in their way, but it is only when their right is established before the appropriate Court and not otherwise. It is further clarified that if petitioners are in rightful possession of the land and is required by the Government then liberty to acquire it would remain or, in the alternative, to mutually negotiate for compensation or for allotment of other land. The directions aforesaid are subject to right in the land and not otherwise.” Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned notices/orders be quashed and the writ petitions be allowed. 5. The factum of the order dated 24.04.2018 is not disputed by Mr. G.S. Gill, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of respondents, who submits that entire action has been taken by the respondents very much in accordance with law and in the interest of the public at large. Learned counsel submits that no interference is called for by this Court as it involves serious disputed questions of fact and thus, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners are claiming title over the lands in question on the basis of pattas issued in their favour by the respondents. The issue with respect to the title of the land, construction raised thereon, width of the road and other similar ancillary issues cannot be determined by this Court in exercise of its Extraordinary Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said issues require due consideration as any such determination would have serious civil consequences. 8. Further, the legal rights of the petitioners cannot be brushed aside by merely issuing orders/notices impugned herein. It is also a matter of record that the respondent has agreed to give an oral undertaking to not take any adverse action against the petitioners, which was recorded in the order dated 11.11.2025. 9. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present writ petitions are disposed of by issuing the following directions: - i. The petitioners shall submit their representations along with all relevant documents pertaining to their rights and title over the premises/land in question before the Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Khatushyamji, Sikar (Rajasthan), within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order; ii. The Executive Officer shall consider and decide their representations and objections within a period of 45 days from the receipt of the representation, only after granting them due opportunity of hearing, strictly in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order in each individual case; iii. In the event, the Executive Officer arrives at a decision that any petitioner has a valid title over the land in question and the said land is required for the widening of the road, it would be open for the respondents to acquire the same by following the due process of law and awarding them adequate compensation or in the alternative, by mutually negotiating the compensation for the same or by allotting any other land to the petitioner as per his/her entitlement; iv. With respect to the lands for which representation/objections are not received within the given time period of 15 days or the Executive Officer arrives at a finding that no valid title exists in the favour of the petitioner over the said land, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law; v. Any order passed by the Executive Officer in pursuance of the directions contained herein shall be duly served upon each petitioner who has submitted his/her representation, within a period of three days from the date of passing of such order; vi. However, it is made clear that as an oral undertaking given by the respondents, that no adverse action to the interest of the petitioner would be taken, was existing during the pendency of the writ petitions, the said undertaking and interim protection would continue for a further period of 15 days after due service of the order(s) passed by the Executive Officer upon each petitioner in their respective cases. 10. It is needless to say, that any person aggrieved by the said decision of the Executive Officer shall be at liberty to avail the legal remedies as available under the law for redressal of his grievances. 11. With the above directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of. 12. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J JAYANT KUMAR /8-21