[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/-
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 06:23:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
