[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gaja Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 1 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:51861-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 329/2025
1. Gaja Ram S/o Bagata Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Mukhad Khurd,tehsil Shiv, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
2. Multana Ram S/o Kutala Ram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
Mukhad Khurd,tehsil Shiv, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
3. Teekama Ram S/o Amra Ram, Aged About 64 Years, R/o
Mukhad Khurd, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
4. Joga Ram S/o Savanta Ram, Aged About 71 Years, R/o
162, Bhojana, Kumharo Ki Dhani, Mukhab Khurd, Tehsil
Shiv, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
5. Chutra Ram S/o Jasvanta Ram, Aged About 66 Years, R/o
Bhojani Kumharo Ki Dhani Mukhad Khurd, Tehsil Shiv,
District Barmer, Rajasthan.
6. Kishna Ram S/o Utama Ram, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Bhojani Ki Dhani Mukhab Khurd, Tehsil Shiv, District
Barmer, Rajasthan.
7. Kutala Ram S/o Mukana Ram, Aged About 74 Years, R/o
Mukhab Khurd, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
8. Om Prakash S/o Khushala Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Bhojani, Kumharon Ki Dhani, Mokhab Khurd, Tehsil Shiv,
District Barmer, Rajasthan.
9. Pema Ram S/o Kutala Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
45/1, Palanimalai Street, Erode No.1 Lorry Office
Backside, Eroda Tamil Nadu.
10. Babu Ram S/o Bagata Ram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o
Mokhab Khurd, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
11. Arjun Ram S/o Khushala Ram, Aged About 69 Years, R/o
Mokhab Khurd, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
12. Bheru Singh S/o Nem Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
Mokhab Khurd, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
13. Kishna Ram S/o Ajita Ram, Aged About 68 Years, R/o
Bhojani Ki Dhani, Mokhab Khurd, Tehsil Shiv, District
Barmer, Rajasthan.
14. Hema Ram S/o Harasiga Ram, Aged About 73 Years, R/o
Bhojani, Kumharon Ki Dhani, Mokhab Khurd Tehsil Shiv
District Barmer, Rajasthan.
(Uploaded on 02/12/2025 at 04:25:53 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/12/2025 at 06:37:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51861-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-329/2025]
15. Chuna Ram S/o Harsiga Ram, Aged About 63 Years, R/o
Mokhab Khurd, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
16. Nimba Ram S/o Hadvanta Ram, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
Arniyali, Mokhab Khurd, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer.
17. Hukma Ram S/o Bagta Ram, Aged About 61 Years, R/o
Mokhab Khurd, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
18. Hukma Ram S/o Punma Ram, Aged About 74 Years, R/o
Mokhab Khurd, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
19. Kana Ram, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Mokhab Khurd,
Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
20. Deraj Ram S/o Shetan Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Mokhab Khurd, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
21. Nakhata Am S/o Jagu Ram, Aged About 61 Years, R/o
Mokhab Khurd, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Public Work Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Superintending Engineer, Public Work Department,
Barmer.
3. Executive Engineer, Public Work Department, Block Shiv,
District Barmer.
4. Sub Division Magistrate, Shiv, Barmer.
5. Tehsildar, Shiv, District Barmer.
6. Pokar Ram Brother-In-Law/o Navala Ram, Aged About 58
Years, R/o Maiyon Ki Dhani, Mokhab Khurd, Tehsil Shiv,
District Barmer (Mental Retarded) Through The Natural
Guardian Yonger Brother China Ram S/o Navala Ram,
Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Maiyon Ki Dhani,
Mokhab Khurd, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Moti Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Advocate &
AAG with Mr. Ayush Gehlot.
Mr. Harish Purohit.
(Uploaded on 02/12/2025 at 04:25:53 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/12/2025 at 06:37:03 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51861-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-329/2025]
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
01/12/2025
1. An application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of
India has been moved by the respondents seeking vacation of
interim order passed by this Court on 25 th February, 2025,
whereby this Court stayed the effect and operation of the order
under appeal. By the order under appeal, the learned Single
Judge disposed of the writ petition with the directions to the
respondents to construct the bitumen road on the existing gravel
road. Further the authorities were directed to take appropriate
proceedings to remove the encroachment made by the petitioner
on the Government land in accordance with law.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by those, who were
duly impleaded as respondents before the learned Single Judge
and it is stated that the action of the State in constructing the
bitumen road on the existing gravel road would amount to leaving
the existing gair mumkin rasta from construction, in a way the
State Government is supporting encroachment made by the
petitioner on the Government land. He further submits that there
was no occasion to make a separate gravel road when there was
already an existing gair mumkin rasta. It is an admitted position
that the State had recognized the writ petitioner to be an
encroacher on the Government land bearing Khasra No.103, and
therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the
road to be constructed on the Gair Mumkin Rasta. So far as the
respondent-writ petitioner is concerned, he submits that the issue
(Uploaded on 02/12/2025 at 04:25:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51861-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-329/2025]
regarding encroachment has been dealt with by the learned Single
Judge and the same in any manner cannot be a reason to divert
the road, which has already been made and graveled.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
State submits that while the directions of the learned Single Judge
would be followed in laying down the bitumen road on the existing
gravel road, steps would also be taken to remove encroachment
done by the writ petitioner and the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge would not in any manner mean to give any
leverage to the writ petitioner.
4. We have considered the submissions.
5. The appellants before us had filed a civil suit against the writ
petitioner and in the civil suit, the Addl. Civil Jude No.2 Barmer
directed the defendants in the suit, namely, the State
Government, to follow the entire procedure and after seeking prior
sanction and without giving any benefit to any of the parties to the
suit, construct a road after making due measurements. The order
was passed on 04.09.2023. The State in its due wisdom has
chosen to lay down a gravel road, which moves from Khasra
Nos.15, 61, 217 and 330 as is reflecting from Annex.3 to the writ
petition (C to D).
6. It appears that there is a diversion made while making a
gravel road from the gair mumkin rasta. However, we are of the
firm view that there is no embargo for the State to make two
different roads. While existing gair mumkin rasta cannot be
encroached upon, at the same time the State can make another
road as existing, which is a gravel road. When they had already
laid down a gravel road, it is necessary that the same should be
(Uploaded on 02/12/2025 at 04:25:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:51861-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-329/2025]
metalled and accordingly, the direction issued by the learned
Single Judge for laying down the bitumen road cannot be objected
to.
7. The contention of the appellants before us essentially is
against the concerned writ petitioner. While we find that the writ
petitioner had filed the writ petition with an oblique motive and
purpose so as to give benefit of encroachment made by him, the
learned Single Judge was cautious enough and directed the State
to remove the encroachment. We affirm the said direction and we
make it clear that in no circumstance any encorachment should be
allowed either on the gair mumkin rasta (as known katani rasta)
as well as on any Government land bearing Khasra No.103
adjacent to it. There should be no obstruction in constructing and
laying down the bitumen road. If the Government chooses, it may
also make the gravel road on gair mumkin rasta additionally.
8. With the aforesaid observations, we dispose of the present
appeal of the appellants and close the issue, while upholding the
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ
25-a.asopa/-
(Uploaded on 02/12/2025 at 04:25:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
