[2026:RJ-JP:23559] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10866/2026 1. Tarachand, Aged About 65 Years, S/o Nanag Ram 2. Man Singh, Aged About 40 Years, S/o Indar Singh 3. Munshiram, Aged About 55 Years, S/o Harlal 4. Rohitas Chand, Aged About 65 Years, S/o Khemchand 5. Rajbala, Aged About 70 Years, W/o Lt. Mahendar Singh 6. Digen, Aged About 34 Years, S/o Kamal Singh 7. Jhutar, Aged About 70 Years, S/o Bhadur Singh 8. Om Prakash, Aged About 60 Years, S/o Ganeshi 9. Hawa Singh, Aged About 65 Years, S/o Kumbharam 10. Vijay Kumar, Aged About 50 Years, S/o Sukhdev Singh 11. Rajesh Singh, Aged About 50 Years, S/o Shriram 12. Sunita Kumari, Aged About 40 Years, W/o Bholu Ram 13. Ramdhan, Aged About 70 Years, S/o Shyojiram 14. Jaisingh, Aged About 70 Years, S/o Chetaram 15. Suresh Kumar, Aged About 50 Years, S/o Nathiram 16. Ramesh Kumar, Aged About 40 Years, S/o Parbhatiram 17. Vinod Kumar, Aged About 35 Years, S/o Prabhatiram 18. Prabhatiram, Aged About 70 Years, S/o Matadin 19. Manish Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, S/o Sitaram 20. Puranmal, Aged About 50 Years, S/o Matadin 21. Lakmichand, Aged About 45 Years, S/o Mukhram 22. Hukam Chand, Aged About 65 Years, S/o Harlal 23. Subhay Singh, Aged About 65 Years, S/o Maduram 24. Pravin Kumar, Aged About 40 Years, S/o Banay Singh 25. Satyveer Singh, Aged About 65 Years, S/o Sadhuram 26. Nihal Singh, Aged About 70 Years, S/o Nathiram 27. Narendar Kumar, Aged About 40 Years, S/o Lalchand 28. Balveer, Aged About 75 Years, S/o Lahariya 29. Sampat S/o Yadram, Aged About 60 Years All R/o Neemlaka, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Khairthal- Tijara. ----Petitioners [2026:RJ-JP:23559] (2 of 4) [CW-10866/2026] Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. District Collector, Khairthal-Tijara. 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara. 4. Tehsildar, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumer Singh Ola For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI (V.J.) Order 24/06/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that your lordships may be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and by appropriate writ, order or direction; I) Direct the respondents to consider the case of the present petitioners the area with red ink and verbally said that all these houses will be demolished, hence it is requested to the Hon'ble Court that no action should be taken by the respondent without any hearing and without any notice. II) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the [2026:RJ-JP:23559] (3 of 4) [CW-10866/2026] facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioners." 2. Mr. Sumer Singh Ola, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the sole contention of the petitioners is that without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, their houses, where they are residing since long, have been marked by red ink by the respondents and they have been verbally intimated that the construction raised by the petitioners to the extent it has been marked by the red ink will be demolished. 3. Learned counsel, to buttress his submission, has annexed photos of the red markings by the respondents on the houses of the petitioners. Learned counsel has also annexed Aadhaar Cards of few of the petitioners to demonstrate their residence in the said houses. He further submits that the petitioners be granted an opportunity of hearing to put forth their stand before the respondent authorities prior to demolition of their residential houses, which would be very much in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fair play, and till the said exercise is carried out, no coercive action be taken by the respondents against the petitioners. 4. Taking note of the aforesaid facts, more particularly the fact that the petitioners are residents of the houses which have been marked by red ink by the respondents, and verbally intimated about demolition of the same, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: i) The respondent No.2 or any authority under its jurisdiction, who, if intends to take any action in respect of the construction raised by the petitioners, including that of [2026:RJ-JP:23559] (4 of 4) [CW-10866/2026] demolition, would serve a notice upon the petitioners with respect to the proposed action, and the encroachment, if any made by the petitioners, calling upon them to put forth their justification and substantiate their right and title over the land on which the said construction has been raised; ii) the petitioners, on receipt of any such notice, as and when received, would be required to file a reply to the notice, within a period of ten days from the receipt of the same along with all the documents to support their submissions; iii) in the event of any such reply being filed by the petitioner(s), the concerned authority would pass a reasoned and speaking order after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners; iv) till the said decision is made in respect of the notice issued, and for a further period of seven days thereafter, the respondents are restrained from demolishing the houses of the petitioners. 5. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition, so also the pending application(s) stand disposed of. 6. Needless to say, that in case petitioners are aggrieved by the decision so arrived at by the respondents, they would be at liberty to invoke all the remedies as available under law. (ANUROOP SINGHI (V.J.)),J 131/DIPESH CHAYAL