Ganga Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 14542 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ganga Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 29 October, 2025

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:46635]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                       AT JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7733/2025
1.       Ganga Singh S/o Shri Khet Dan, Aged About 72 Years,
         Resident Of Judiya, Tehsil Balesar District Jodhpur.
2.       Ishwar Dan S/o Shri Devi Dan, Aged About 43 Years,
         Resident Of Judiya, Tehsil Balesar District Jodhpur.
3.       Shambhu Dan S/o Shri Govind Dan, Aged About 55 Years,
         Resident Of Judiya, Tehsil Balesar District Jodhpur.
4.       Rawal Ram S/o Shri Mukna Ram Brahmin, Aged About 40
         Years, Resident Of Judiya, Tehsil Balesar District Jodhpur.
5.       Durg Singh S/o Shri Sen Singh Rajput, Aged About 65
         Years, Resident Of Judiya, Tehsil Balesar District Jodhpur.
6.       Moti Ram S/o Shri Kasba Ram Suthar, Aged About 64
         Years, Resident Of Judiya, Tehsil Balesar District Jodhpur.
7.       Bhanwar Dan S/o Shri Devi Dan Charan, Aged About 44
         Years, Resident Of Judiya, Tehsil Balesar District Jodhpur.
8.       Champa Lal S/o Shri Himta Ram Prajapat, Aged About 55
         Years, Resident Of Judiya, Tehsil Balesar District Jodhpur.
9.       Khinya Ram S/o Shri Dala Ram Suthar, Aged About 70
         Years, Resident Of Judiya, Tehsil Balesar District Jodhpur.
10.      Jaipal Dan S/o Shri Senidan Charan, Aged About 43
         Years, Resident Of Judiya, Tehsil Balesar District Jodhpur.
11.      Swaroop Dan S/o Shri Ghumardan Charan, Aged About
         46 Years, Resident Of Judiya, Tehsil Balesar District
         Jodhpur.
12.      Senidan S/o Shri Govind Dan Charan, Aged About 65
         Years, Resident Of Judiya, Tehsil Balesar District Jodhpur.
13.      Shrawan Kumar S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 38
         Years, Resident Of Judiya, Tehsil Balesar District Jodhpur.
14.      Madhudan S/o Shri Kojudan Charan, Aged About 63
         Years, Resident Of Judiya, Tehsil Balesar District Jodhpur.
15.      Sumera Ram S/o Shri Sagta Ram, Aged About 38 Years,
         Resident Of Balesar Durgawata, Tehsil Balesar District
         Jodhpur.
16.      Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Bhinya Ram, Aged About 31 Years,
         Resident Of Devnagar, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.
17.      Raju Ram S/o Shri Ranchhora Ram, Aged About 38 Years,
         Resident Of Devnagar, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur.
18.      Madho Singh S/o Shri Khushal Singh, Aged About 55
         Years, Resident Of Devnagar, Tehsil Balesar, District
         Jodhpur.
19.      Pepa Ram S/o Shri Mangna Ram, Aged About 42 Years,
         Resident Of Balesar Durgawata, Tehsil Balesar District

                      (Uploaded on 30/10/2025 at 05:42:41 PM)
                     (Downloaded on 30/10/2025 at 10:05:07 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:46635]                     (2 of 5)                          [CW-7733/2025]


         Jodhpur.
20.      Dhana Ram S/o Shri Jiya Ram, Aged About 24 Years,
         Resident Of Devnagar, Tehsil Balesar District Jodhpur.
21.      Deva Ram S/o Late Shri Mangi Lal, Aged About 27 Years,
         Resident Of Judiya, Tehsil Balesar District Jodhpur.
22.      Bhoja Ram S/o Late Shri Moola Ram, Aged About 30
         Years, Resident Of Judiya, Tehsil Balesar District Jodhpur.
                                                                       ----Petitioners
                                      Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
         Of Revenue (Gr.ii), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
         Jaipur.
2.       Dy.  Secretary,   Department    Of     Revenue                        (Gr.i),
         Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.       Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And
         Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
         Jaipur.
4.       Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, Through Registrar.
5.       The District Collector, Jodhpur.
6.       Gram Panchayat, Judiya, Panchayat Samiti Balesar
         District Jodhpur Through Its Village Development Officer.
7.       Tehsildar (Revenue), Balesar, District Jodhpur.
8.       Sub Divisional Officer, Balesar, District Jodhpur.
9.       Patwari, Patwar Mandal Judiya District Jodhpur.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Ashok Choudhary for
                                  Mr. R.S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with
                                  Mr. Sher Singh Rathore.



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

29/10/2025

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the

petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming

following relief(s):

(Uploaded on 30/10/2025 at 05:42:41 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:46635] (3 of 5) [CW-7733/2025]

"xxxxxxx

(i) the impugned notification dated 26.03.2025 (Ann.19) may kindly be declared highly arbitrary, unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of create of new revenue villages Kalyan Singh Nagar and Shri Balaji Nagar fróm Village Judiya.

(ii) the respondents may kindly be restrained from creating new wards of the village Kalyan Singh Nagar and Shri Balaji Nagar in pursuance of the notification dated 26.03.2025.

(iii) the respondents may kindly be restrained from making demarcation of the village Kalyan Singh Nagar and Shri Balaji Nagar in pursuance of the notification dated 26.03.2025.

xxxxxxxx"

2. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit

assisted by Mr. Sher Singh Rathore, Advocate, at the outset,

makes a submission that the controversy involved in the present

writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated

23.09.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in

SBCWP No.14930/2025 (with other connected matter) titled as

"Mala Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors."; wherein,

the writ petitions were dismissed by the Coordinate Bench while

granting liberty to the petitioners to file representation before the

competent authority of the State Government within a period of

30 days and the State Authority was directed to consider and

decide the representation of the petitioners in an expeditious

manner.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioners is unable to

refute the submission made by learned Additional Advocate

General that the present controversy is similar to the case of Mala

Ram (supra), however, he draws attention of this Court towards

the Certificate dated 28.03.2025 (Annex.17), issued by the Village

Development Officer, Judiya; in which, he has stated he has never

(Uploaded on 30/10/2025 at 05:42:41 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:46635] (4 of 5) [CW-7733/2025]

given any consent/proposal for creation of revenue villages viz.

Shri Kalyan Singh Nagar and Shri Balanji Nagar. The certificate

reads as under:

"प्रमाण पत्र -

मै ग्राम विकास अधिकारी ग्राम पंचायत जु डिया यह प्रमाणित करता हु कि दिनांक 03.03.2025 को ग्राम पंचायत जु डिया ये दो नये राजस्व गां वं श्री बालाजी नगर व कल्याण सिंह नगर के संबंध में सहमति प्रस्ताव व प्रस्ताव जारी नही किया था ना ही मेरे से इस प्रकार का प्रस्ताव मां गा गया था। यदि दिनां क 03.03.2025 का कोई प्रस्ताव बाबत ग्राम पंचायत जु डिया से नये गावं बालाजी नगर व कल्याण सिंह नगर बनाने का मेरे द्वारा हस्ताक्षर कर जारी किया है तो वह फर्जी है और मेरे उस पर फर्जी हस्ताक्षर किये गये है ।

Sd/-"

4. E-converso, the learned AAG, has placed on record the

factual report dated 19.05.2025 submitted by the Village

Development Officer, Judiya, wherein a No Objection Certificate

(NOC) and a Consent Letter were issued by the Village

Development officer for the proposal of establishing a new village-

Kalyan Singh Nagar in accordance with the Circular dated

28.02.2025. He further submits that the said Circular was based

on a unanimous resolution passed in the meeting of the Gram

Panchayat, Judiya, held on 02.02.2024. The factual report dated

19.05.2025 reads as under:

"कार्यालय ग्राम पंचायत जू डिया प.स. बालेसर दिनां क 19.05.2025 सेवा में श्रीमान तहसीलदार महोदय भू.अ.

बालेसर विषयः गंगासिंह बनाम राजसथान सरकार व अन्य के संबंध में तथ्यात्मक रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत करने बाबत् महोदय उपरोक्त विषयान्तर्गत निवेदन है कि श्री गंगासिंह व अन्य द्वारा माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय जोधपुर में सिविल रिट दायर की गई जिसके संबंध में बिन्दुवार तथ्यात्मक रिपोर्ट निम्नानुसार सेवा में पेश है ।

(Uploaded on 30/10/2025 at 05:42:41 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:46635] (5 of 5) [CW-7733/2025]

1. श्री कल्याणसिंह नगर के राजस्थान सरकार जयपुर राजस्व ग्रुप-1 विभाग जयपुर द्वारा जारी परिपत्र क्रमां क प.9(28)/राज० विभाग/2025/82 जयपुर दिनांक 28 फरवरी 2025 के अनुसार अनापति प्रमाण पत्र व सहमति प्रमाण पत्र जारी किए गए है ।

2. श्री कल्याणसिंह नगर के उक्त अनापति प्रमाण पत्र, सहमति प्रमाण पत्र ग्राम पंचायत जू डिया के मूल प्रस्ताव सं 02.02.2024 दिनां क 02.02.2024 की बैठक में सर्वसम्मति से प्रस्तावित प्रस्ताव के आधार पर जारी किए है । रिपोर्ट सादर पेश है ।

सही/-

भवदीय ग्राम विकास अधिकारी ग्राम पंचायत जू डिया प.स. बालेसर "

5. Learned AAG accordingly submits that, in view of the above

factual position, it is clear that the contention raised by the

petitioners' counsel regarding the authenticity of the certificate

dated 28.03.2025, lacks merit.

6. The factual report dated 19.05.2025, is taken on record.

7. Thus, in view of the submission made by learned counsel for

the parties, the instant writ petition is dismissed in the same

terms as in the case of Mala Ram (supra).

8. Needless to observe that the petitioners would be at liberty

to file representations before the competent authority of the State

Government within 30 days from today. In case, a

representation(s) is/are so filed, it is expected from the concerned

State Authority that the same shall be considered and decided in

an expeditious manner.

9. Stay application as well as all other pending application(s), if

any, also stand dismissed.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 219-/Devesh/-

(Uploaded on 30/10/2025 at 05:42:41 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)