The Rajasthan High Court directed a state-level drive to remove all illegal encroachments from roads and footpaths, making it clear that “no sympathy can be extended to such encroachers". The Court was dealing with contempt proceedings related to non-compliance of earlier directions concerning public land, where an application for impleadment was also dismissed as misconceived.
The proceedings arose out of a contempt petition filed over the failure of authorities to comply with earlier directions of the Court on road encroachments in and around Jaipur. During the hearing, an applicant sought to be impleaded in the contempt case. The Court, however, rejected the request at the threshold, holding that contempt matters lie strictly between the Court and the parties against whom directions have been issued.
While no detailed submissions of the applicant were entertained, the Court categorically observed that the plea for impleadment had no legal foundation, since there exists “no rule of impleadment of any person as a contemnor in the contempt proceedings".
Emphasizing the gravity of unchecked encroachments, the Bench noted that the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) and the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, must immediately earmark illegal structures on roads connected to Jaipur through state and national highways. The Court directed that the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan benchmarks be applied to identify encroachments, clarifying that both roads and pedestrian pathways must be kept completely free from obstruction.
The Court further underscored, “No Court is authorized to encourage encroachments, and reliance on Pattas issued by village authorities or orders of any other Court would not come in the way of removing them".
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in In Re: Manoj Tibrewal Akash, the High Court instructed that similar measures must be undertaken by municipal corporations and councils across Rajasthan. Illegal constructions on public roads and footpaths, the Court warned, must be “dealt with strictly in accordance with law". It added that if any officials were found complicit in allowing such encroachments, appropriate action should also be initiated against them.
Dismissing the impleadment plea, the High Court revived the earlier PIL on the subject and directed the State to commence the encroachment removal exercise immediately. Authorities have been ordered to first grant encroachers 7–8 days’ notice to voluntarily remove structures, failing which the cost of demolition will be recovered from them.
The matter will next be heard in October, with the Court requiring a progress report. On that date, senior officials, including the Head of the JDA’s Enforcement Wing and their counterparts from other development authorities, must remain present in person.
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Boyat S/o Shri Raju Boyat & Ors. vs. Vaibhav Galriya, Principal Secretary & Ors.
Case No.: D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 378/2025
Coram: Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Justice Sanjeet Purohit
Picture Source :
