Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nana Lal vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 6 August, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:34841]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13953/2025
Nana Lal S/o Keshu Ram, Aged About 63 Years, Village
Jaisinghpura, Tehsil Badi Sadri, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
2. The Tehsildar Badi Sadri, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Patel
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
06/08/2025
1. Having gone through the material available on record and
considering the submissions advanced by counsel representing the
petitioner, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner has a
suitable remedy available to him for ventilating his grievances by
virtue of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of
Jagdish Prasad Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.10819/2018
decided on 30.01.2019 wherein this Court directed as below:-
"This Court is inundated with large number of writ
petitions, styled as public interest litigation, from
almost all the Districts of the State, with allegations
of encroachment over the pasture land/land of
'johad', 'talab'/ river/river bed/public
way/Shamshan/Kabristan etc. In all such petitions,
common allegation is that despite repeated
complaints/representations to the concerned
revenue officers, no steps are taken by them to
remove the encroachment. This results in number of
writ petitions being filed by the
[2025:RJ-JD:34841] (2 of 3) [CW-13953/2025]
complainants/representationists before this Court.
This Court has been passing orders in such matters
requiring the respective District Collectors to
examine the factual content of the allegations and
take steps to remove the encroachments so as to
secure such land.
In order therefore to provide a pan-Rajasthan
solution to this ever persisting problem, we deem it
appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary of the State
to devise a permanent mechanism, which should be
operational in every District of the State where the
concerned District Collector should be required to
periodically notify for the information of the general
public to lodge the complaints/representations with
regard to such encroachments with a specially
designated Public Land Protection Cell (for short
'PLPC') for rural areas. The PLPC should be headed
by District Collector and function under his direction
and supervision. The PLPC shall get such
complaints/representations enquired into by
deputing concerned Sub DivisionalOfficer/Tehsildar/
Naib Tehsildar so as to verify whether or not such
encroachments have actually taken place on such
land. If the allegations are found to be
substantiated, appropriate steps in accordance with
law be immediately taken for removal of the
encroachments and appropriate penal action be also
taken against the trespassers. The
complaints/representations received in the PLPC
should be decided by passing speaking order,
informing the respective
complainant/representationist about the action
taken. This would obviate the necessity of such
complainants/ representationists approaching this
Court directly by way of public interest litigation. If
this practice is put in place, this Court would not be
inclined to directly entertain such public interest
litigation or would do so only in the event of inaction
on the part of the concerned PLPC. The PLPC
aforementioned shall also keep in view the
guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Jagpal
Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2011)
11 SCC 396wherein all the State Governments of
the country were directed that they should prepare
schemes for eviction of illegal/ unauthorised
occupants of the Gram
Sabha/GramPanchayat/Poramboke/ Shamlat land
and the same must be restored to the Gram Sabha/
Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of
the village. The said scheme should provide for the
speedy eviction of such illegal occupants, after
giving them a showcause notice and a brief hearing.
It was further held therein that long duration of the
illegal encroachment/occupation of land or huge
expenditure in making construction thereon or
political connections of trespassers are no
justification for regularising such illegal occupation.
[2025:RJ-JD:34841] (3 of 3) [CW-13953/2025]
Regularisation should be permitted only in
exceptional cases where lease has been granted
under some government notification e.g. to landless
labourers or members of Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes or where there is already a
school, hospital, dispensary, 'shamshan', 'kabristan'
or other public utility of the like nature on the land."
2. Thus, the petitioner is directed to submit a representation to
the District Collector concerned, who shall assign the matter to
the PLPC constituted under the directions of this Court.
3. The PLPC shall conduct a thorough inquiry into the
representation of the petitioner in light of the directions given by
this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Meena (Supra) and
decide the same within a period of six months from the date of
submission thereof.
4. In case, any adverse order is passed, the petitioner shall be
at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.
5. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
6. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
145-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
