[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Andaram vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 15 December, 2025

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:53846]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24127/2025
1.       Andaram S/o Dularam, Aged About 49                                Years, R/o
         Kashipura, Dugoli, Nagaur (Rajasthan).
2.       Tilok Ram S/o Ramuram, Aged About 70 Years, R/o
         Kashipura, Dugoli, Nagaur (Rajasthan).
                                                                       ----Petitioners
                                      Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The                                Secretary,
         Department Of Revenue, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       The District Collector, Nagaur.
3.       The Sdo, Jayal, Nagaur.
4.       The Tehsildar, Tehsil Jayal, Nagaur.
5.       Shri Lekhram Godara S/o Shri Sukharam, R/o Kashipura,
         Nagaur (Rajasthan).
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Jamvant Gurjar


               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order 15/12/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed by counsel

representing the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India claiming following relief(s):

"xxxxxxx A. By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the impugned notices dt 24.11.2025 (ΑΝNEXURE-4) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

B. By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the record of the case no.01/2025 pending before the Teshildar Jayal may kindly be called for.

xxxxxx"

2. The petitioners are bona fide khatedars with undisputed

rights over their agricultural land in Khasra Nos.1398 and 1348,

Village Kashipura, Patwar Circle Dugoli, as confirmed by revenue

records including jamabandi and khasra maps. On 27.10.2025,

the private respondent lodged a frivolous complaint alleging a

"walkway" on petitioners' private khatedari land, falsely claiming it

(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 06:23:53 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53846] (2 of 4) [CW-24127/2025]

as a katani way amid encroachments on the actual path. Patwari

reports dated 28.10.2025 and 11.11.2025 unequivocally exposed

this foul play: the disputed path is neither a katani way nor

recorded as such in revenue records--it is purely private khatedari

land belonging to petitioners. Despite these authoritative findings

debunking the complaint, Tehsildar Jayal mechanically issued

illegal notices to petitioners under Section 251 of the Rajasthan

Tenancy Act, 1955 on 24.11.2025, brazenly ignoring binding

revenue evidence and due process. Aggrieved by the aforesaid,

petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to

quash the notices and vindicate their sacrosanct khatedari rights.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in

settled and peaceful possession of the property in question. It is

only on the basis of a frivolous application filed by the private

respondent No.5 that the respondent-authorities have proceeded

to issue the impugned Notice dated 24.11.2025 under Section 251

of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1955').

He submits that the Mauka Report dated 11.11.2025 as well as

the earlier Report dated 28.10.2025 categorically record that the

so-called disputed walkway is not a katani way and is not entered

or recognized as such in the revenue record. Despite these

unambiguous findings of the field staff, the respondents have, in a

mechanical and arbitrary manner, issued the notice to the

petitioners. He submits that the impugned notice is void ab initio

and stands vitiated by complete non-application of mind,

inasmuch as the respondents have ignored and failed to take into

consideration the aforesaid Reports. Since the very initiation of

proceedings under Section 251 of the Act of 1955 is ex-facie

(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 06:23:53 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53846] (3 of 4) [CW-24127/2025]

illegal and without jurisdiction, the petitioners, treating the notice

as bad in law, have chosen not to file any reply to the same.

4. Heard.

5. This Court notices that pursuant to the proceedings initiated

under Section 251 of the Act of 1955, the petitioners were served

with the Notice dated 24.11.2025; whereby, they were specifically

required to remove the alleged encroachment from the blocked

road on or before 01.12.2025. By the same notice, they were

afforded adequate opportunity to appear before the competent

revenue authority, either in person or through a pleader, on

01.12.2025 and to present their case. The notice further made it

abundantly clear that in the event of non-appearance of the

petitioners or their pleader on the said date, the proceedings

against them would be initiated ex parte.

6. It is an admitted position, as stated by learned counsel for

the petitioners, that the petitioners neither filed any reply to the

said notice nor chose to appear before the authority on the date

so fixed. In other words, despite a clear stipulation that the

petitioners could either comply with the requirement of removal of

encroachment or contest the proceedings by appearing and

presenting their case, the petitioners of their own volition, elected

not to avail the remedy of filing reply and directly approaching this

Court by way of filing the present writ petition.

7. In this context, reference may be had to judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs.

Kunisetty Satyanarayana: (2006) 12 SCC 28, wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that ordinarily, no writ petition lies

against a charge-sheet or show cause notice, as at that

(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 06:23:53 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53846] (4 of 4) [CW-24127/2025]

preliminary stage, the writ is premature. This is because such

notices do not constitute an adverse order affecting any rights;

hence, they do not give rise to a cause of action to approach a

writ court. Only when a final order is passed imposing punishment

or otherwise adversely affecting a party does a writ become

maintainable. The exception is rare, such as when the notice is

issued wholly without jurisdiction or is otherwise wholly illegal.

Relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder:

"14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so... It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one... It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance."

8. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view

that a writ petition, at the stage of notice, is not maintainable

when sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing has already

been afforded to the person concerned. Law is well settled that

ordinarily, a notice, calling upon a party to show the cause, does

not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction, particularly when the

party has an efficacious opportunity to appear before the authority

and raise all factual and legal objections thereto.

9. Hence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed as such. Stay

application as well as all other pending application(s), if any, also

stand dismissed.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 11-/Devesh Thanvi/-