Ramlal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:35959)
2025 Latest Caselaw 6159 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ramlal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:35959) on 12 August, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:35959]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15063/2025

1.       Ramlal S/o Shri Madna Ram, Aged About 52 Years,
         Resident Of Village Kumpdas, Tehsil Nagaur, District
         Nagaur (Rajasthan).
2.       Bharu Ram S/o Pokar Ram, Aged About 40 Years,
         Resident Of Village Kumpdas, Tehsil Nagaur, District
         Nagaur (Rajasthan).
                                                                       ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Public Health And
         Engineering Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2.       Executive   Engineer,        Public      Health         And     Engineering
         Department, Merta (Nagaur), Rajasthan.
3.       Assistant   Engineer,        Public      Health         And     Engineering
         Department, Merta (Nagaur), Rajasthan.
4.       Ummeda      Ram       S/o    Hardinram,          Resident        Of   Village
         Kumpdas, Tehsil Nagaur, District Nagaur (Rajasthan).
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Deepak Bishnoi.
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Rajendra Katariya.



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

12/08/2025

1. The present writ petition has been preferred with regard to

location of the tube-well.

2. The decision as taken by the Government to have a tube-well

on the land surrendered by a private person, was challenged

before the Permanent Lok Adalat ('PLA'). The order passed by the

PLA has been challenged by way of present writ petition while

asserting the fact that the location is not appropriate.

[2025:RJ-JD:35959] (2 of 2) [CW-15063/2025]

3. As pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents the

tube-well in question had already been dug. The tube-well has

been dug on the land surrendered by a private person, but after

surrender, the land came in ownership of the State. Perhaps

significant public money must have been spent for digging the

tube-well. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to

point out any error in the impugned judgment passed by the PLA.

Furthermore, the location was decided based on a technical

report.

4. In view of the facts as stated above, this Court does not

deem it appropriate to interfere in the present writ petition.

5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

6. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(SUNIL BENIWAL),J 16-Rmathur/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)