Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 495 (RAJ)

Bhuraram P. Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-21

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2025
ORDER : VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the respondents may be restrained from demolishing the construction of the house/building of the petitioner on the pretext of the extension of the existing road. 3. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that the petitioner is a resident of Gram Panchayat Bichhawari, revenue village Rajeshwarpura. He further submits that the petitioner is having a house in Khasra No.1054 (Old No.611) for last three decades. In front of the house of the petitioner, a way (Rasta) is passing through which connects the State Highway over which the respondents are undertaking the construction of widening the same by making a bitumen road. In the process, the residential house of the petitioner is being demolished without giving any show cause notice to the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is residing in his dwelling house for last more than 40 years and the construction of the house has been undertaken by him after taking due permission from the Gram Panchayat. He further submits that on the pretext of widening of the road, the construction of the petitioner’s house is being demolished without giving any show cause notice or without giving any opportunity of hearing to him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the action taken by the respondents for demolition of the house of the petitioner is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the respondents may be restrained from demolishing the construction of the petitioner’s house on the pretext of widening of the existing road. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- State submits that in order to facilitate the traffic on the road passing by the house of the petitioner, the widening of the road is being undertaken. Learned counsel very fairly submits that neither any show cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before undertaking the work of removal of the structure (boundary wall) of the petitioner’s house for the purpose of widening the existing road. 7. Learned counsel very fairly submits that neither any show cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before undertaking the work of removal of the structure (boundary wall) of the petitioner’s house for the purpose of widening the existing road. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further prays that liberty may be given to the respondents to issue the show cause notice to all those persons including the petitioner before their structure are sought to be removed for construction/widening of the existing road. 8. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the relevant record of the case. 9. It is true that the respondents are undertaking the work of the widening of the road nearby the house of the petitioner and for the purpose, if the constructed house of the petitioner is sought to be removed, then at least the respondents are required to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to show cause as to why the existing structure of the petitioner is causing hindrance in the construction/widening of the road. 10. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner has constructed a building after obtaining due permission from the Gram Panchayat, therefore, if the same is sought to be removed, then in compliance of the principle of natural justice, at least an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the petitioner by the respondents before removing the structures. 11. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition merit acceptance and the same is allowed. The respondents are restrained from demolishing the house of the petitioner without issuing show cause notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing. 12. It is made clear that the respondents thereafter will proceed for construction of widening of the road after deciding the matter with the petitioner and other similarly situated persons in accordance with law. 13. The stay petition as well as other pending misc. applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.