[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prem Sukh Pandit vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:19669) on 27 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:19669]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12058/2025
Prem Sukh Pandit S/o Ramakishan Pandit, Aged About 76 Years,
Resident Of Pandito Ka Bass, Nimbi Jodhan, Nagaur, (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Revenue
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. District Collector, Didwana Kuchaman (Rajasthan).
3. The Tehsildar, Nimbijodha, Ladnun, District Nagaur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kishan Bhaiya
Mr. Mayank Bhaiya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
27/04/2026
1. Present wit petition has been filed against notice dated
02.06.2025 issued under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land
Revenue Act ("LR Act") by Tehsildar Nimbijodha, Ladnun, whereby
petitioner has been alleged to be an encroacher upon the land in
question and proceedings have been initiated against him.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of the
fact that petitioner has been in peaceful possession of the land in
question, for which a patta has been duly issued in his name and
residential house has also been constructed thereon, initiation of
such proceedings against petitioner by the respondents is
unsustainable in the eyes of law.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 02:50:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19669] (2 of 3) [CW-12058/2025]
3. Learned counsel for respondents seriously objects aforesaid
submission and raises preliminary objections regarding
maintainability of present writ petition against impugned order
passed under Section 91 of the LR Act.
4. This Court finds that it is settled position of law that a writ
petition is not maintainable against notice issued under Section 91
of the LR Act. It has been consistently held by this Court that
where a notice under Section 91 is challenged, the aggrieved
party has an efficacious alternate remedy to file a reply and raise
all available objections before the concerned authority. Therefore,
invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court at such a stage is not
appropriate. Reliance may appropriately be placed upon order
dated 08.04.2015 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble
High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4351/2015 titled
Smt. Meera Devi v. District Collector, Ajmer & Ors., wherein
it has been held as under: -
"It is a well settled practice of this Court that no
interference in the powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is made against a show cause
notice unless it is palpably without jurisdiction or is
evidently mala fide. None of the two grounds are even
agitated in the petition or even argued. Further the
petitioner has the remedy, as already availed, to
file reply to the show cause notice. Aside of the
aforesaid, the question as to whether the petitioner's
possession is in respect of the land allotted to him
under the Rules of 1986 or over charagah land is a
question of fact which cannot be addressed in the writ
petition. In the circumstances and for reasons
recorded, I am not inclined to interfere in this writ
petition with the impugned show cause notice dated
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 02:50:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19669] (3 of 3) [CW-12058/2025]
11.02.2015, but would instead direct the Tehsildar,
Arai, District Ajmer to fairly consider the reply filed by
the petitioner and adjudicate the show cause notice
dated 11.02.2015 issued under Section 91 of the Act
of 1956 in accordance with law by passing a reasoned
and speaking order thereon."
5. Similarly, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18769/2025
titled Smt. Kamod Devi & Anr. v. State of Rajsthan & Ors.,
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under: -
"2. The petitioners have directly approached this
Court, without filing the reply to the said notice.
Hence, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits
of the case.
3. This Court is of the view that the petitioners
are required to approach the concerned
respondent, who has issued the impugned notice
to the petitioners, by way of filing
reply/representation along with the relevant
documents in support thereof."
6. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court is of
the opinion that present writ petition, filed against impugned
notice dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure - 3), is not maintainable.
Petitioner is at liberty to raise all grounds of objection by filing an
appropriate reply/representation before the concerned authority.
7. Accordingly, instant writ petition is dismissed.
8. Stay application and all pending application, if any, also
stand dismissed.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
16-shashikant/-
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 02:50:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
