Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4380 (RAJ)

SURESH S/O RAMKARAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/17539/2025 · 2026-03-24

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Shubha Mehta

Public Interest Litigationbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:12327-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. (P.I.L.) Writ Petition No. 17539/2025 1. Suresh S/o Ramkaran, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Bhagod Bhawan, Jaat Ki Dhani, Village Devisinghpura, Post Ajayrajpura, Thasil Sanganer District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Sanjay Choudhary S/o Rameshwar Choudhary, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Aanand Niwas Village Devisinghpura, Post Ajayrajpura, Thasil Sanganer District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Ramjilal Choudhary S/o Jagdish Prasad Choudhary, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Devisinghpura, Post Ajayrajpura, Thasil Sanganer District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Urban Development And Housing (Udh), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Commissioner, Jln Marg, Jaipur. 3. District Collector, District Jaipur. 4. Tehsildar, Tehsil Office, Sanganer, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Babulal Nasuna Mr. Pradeep Sharma Mr. Rajeev Sogarwal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pooja Sharma, AAAG HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 24/03/2026 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners challenge the scheme introduced by the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) for setting up of general [2026:RJ-JP:12327-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-17539/2025] warehousing scheme, which the petitioners seek to challenge stating that the orders of the concerned land had granted way for reaching to the funeral ground and, therefore, the warehousing scheme should not be allowed to proceed. 3. We find that admittedly, there was no passage mentioned in the pathway from the concerned revenue record and by way of Public Interest Litigation, we cannot direct that a particular way should be created for reaching to the cremation ground, when earlier there was no such way. 4. Accordingly, the instant PIL is wholly misconceived and the same is dismissed. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/24