Hakam Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:10477)
2025 Latest Caselaw 7745 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 7745 Raj
Judgement Date : 21 February, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hakam Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:10477) on 21 February, 2025

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:10475]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4669/2025
Bhura Ram S/o Shri Bhoma Ram, Aged About 40 Years, Resident
Of Ward No. 21, Mohan Ji Ka Kareshar, Barmer (Rajasthan).
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director Cum Special
         Secretary, Directorate, Local Self Department, Jaipur
         (Rajasthan).
2.       Municipal Council,        Barmer        (Rajasthan),       Through    Its
         Commissioner.
                                                                 ----Respondents
                             Connected with
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4711/2025
 Pratap Singh S/o Bhawar Singh, Aged About 60 Years, r/o
 Behind Ma Santoshi Hotel, Barmer (Rajasthan)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
 1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director Cum Special
          Secretary, Directorate, Local Self Department, Jaipur
          (Rajasthan).
 2.       Municipal Council        Barmer        (Rajasthan),       Through    Its
          Commissioner.
                                                                 ----Respondents

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4722/2025
 Hakam Singh S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Resident
 Of Ward No.-21, Mohan Ji Ka Kareshar, Barmer, (Rajasthan).
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
 1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director Cum Special
          Secretary, Directorate, Local Self Department, Jaipur
          (Rajasthan).
 2.       Municipal Council, Barmer (Rajasthan). Through Its
          Commissioner.
                                                                 ----Respondents

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4724/2025
 1.       Pukhraj S/o Shri Ranchha Ram, Aged About 30 Years,
          Resident Of Ward No.21, South To Choutan Chowraya,
          Barmer (Rajasthan).
 2.       Mehtab Singh S/o Shri Sujan Singh, Aged About 26
          Years, Resident Of Ward No.21, South To Choutan
          Chowraya, Barmer (Rajasthan).
                                                                   ----Petitioners


                     (Downloaded on 21/02/2025 at 11:17:54 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:10475]                     (2 of 3)                        [CW-4669/2025]


                                       Versus
 1.         State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director Cum Special
            Secretary, Directorate, Local Self Department, Jaipur
            (Rajasthan).
 2.         Municipal Council, Barmer (Rajasthan). Through Its
            Commissioner.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :    Mr. S.P. Sharma
                                  Mr. Dalpat Singh
For Respondent(s)            :    Mr. Monal Chugh for
                                  Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

21/02/2025

Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the

controversy involved in the present matters is squarely covered by

a judgment rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.205/2025 (Sujjan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and

Anr.) decided on 23.01.2025 in the following terms:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 23.12.2023 (Annex.5), whereby, the patta issued by the respondents to the petitioner has been cancelled.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, submits that before passing the order dated 23.12.2023, neither any show cause notice was given nor any opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner. He very fairly submits that the respondents may be given opportunity to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to refute the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Considering the submissions made at the bar and without going into the detailed factual matrix of the

[2025:RJ-JD:10475] (3 of 3) [CW-4669/2025]

matter, it is noted that the petitioner was issued Patta by the respondents way back in the year 2022 on which certain constructions have been undertaken by the petitioner. The respondents after having noticed certain deviation with respect to the construction undertaken by the petitioner beyond the permissible limit, have cancelled the patta of the petitioner vide order dated 23.12.2023 without giving any opportunity of hearing to him and without issuing any show cause notice. The action of the respondents is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as the order adverse to the interest of the petitioner has been passed in total non- compliance of the settled principles of law.

6. Since the learned counsel for the respondent himself has submitted before this Court that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the order dated 23.12.2023 and a liberty is sought for passing a fresh order in accordance with law, therefore, the present writ petition merits acceptance and the same is allowed. The order dated 23.12.2023 is quashed and set-aside. However, the respondents will be at liberty to pass an appropriate order, if they felt so advised, in accordance with law.