Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 470 (RAJ)

Faglu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-20

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2025
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the notices/orders dated 22.10.2024 and 15.01.2025 passed by the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are having a Patta of the land and they have constructed a building over the Pattashud land. Learned counsel further submits that in pursuance of the notices issued by the respondents on 22.10.2024 & 15.01.2025, the construction made on the Pattashud land will be demolished. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the construction made on the Pattashud land of the petitioners may be protected. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case. 5. The notices issued by the respondents on 22.10.2024 & 15.01.2025 very clearly state that the occupation of the land by all those persons beyond the permissible limit being encroachment may be removed. Therefore, the land/areas which are trespassed or encroached by the villagers are sought to be removed by issuance of such notices by the respondents. Since the petitioners are holding the Patta of the land over which the house/shops have been constructed, therefore, there is no reason for the petitioners to be frightened with respect to the notices issued by the respondents. Even otherwise, the notices dated 22.10.2024 & 15.01.2025 are for the persons who have encroached upon the land. Since the petitioners is having a Patta in their favour, therefore, the same does not pertain to the petitioners. However, it will be open for the petitioners to submit reply to the notices issued by the respondents and the respondents shall consider the same while removing the encroachment made on the subject piece of land. 6. It is made clear that if the petitioners file any representation/ objection to the notice issued by the respondents, the respondent- authorities shall consider the same and decide it, strictly in accordance with law. 7. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is not inclined to interfere the orders/notices issued by the respondents. The present writ petition is, therefore, disposed of. 8. The stay petition as well as other pending misc. applications, if any, stand disposed of.