[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rajendra Meghwal vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 4 February, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:6508]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18408/2025

Rajendra Meghwal S/o Shri Kishan Lal Meghwal, Aged About 52
Years, Resident Of Near Nimach Mata Temple, 140 Ward No. 1,
Village Dewali, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur (Raj.).
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       The    State      Of     Rajasthan,         Through        The   Secretary,
         Department Of Urban Development And Housing, Jaipur
         (Raj.).
2.       The    Commissioner,           Udaipur        Development        Authority,
         Udaipur (Raj.).
3.       The District Collector, Udaipur (Raj.).
4.       The Executive Engineer, Udaipur Development Authority,
         Udaipur (Raj.).
5.       M/s Jitendra Jain, 03, Rupnagar, Hirendmagri Sector 03,
         Bsnl Road, Udaipur (Raj.).
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Aruna Negi
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Vijay Purohit



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

04/02/2026

1. Present writ petition is filed praying for following reliefs:-

"(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned work order dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure-

8) and impugned nit no. 2025-26/i dated 23.04.2025 and illegal action of the respondent going to acquire the land of khasra no. 352, 353, 355, 356/1 along with demolition of constructed and developed cattle shed with a boundary wall of 300 feet of petitioner without adopting the due process of law, may kindly be declared as illegal and void and

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 05:52:50 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6508] (2 of 5) [CW-18408/2025]

(ii) the impugned work order dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure-8) may kindly be quashed and set aside on being illegal unjustified and against the mandatory provisions of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and Rajasthan Rules, 2016 framed there under and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(iii) and the impugned nit no.5/2025-26/1 dated 23.04.2025 issued by the Udaipur development authority, Udaipur may kindly be called and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(iv) the illegal action of the respondent department to land of khasra no.352, 353, 355, 356/1 and demolition of boundary wall of 300 feet and a constructed cattle shed may kindly be quashed and set aside on being illegal, unjustified and against the mandatory provisions of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and Rajasthan Rules, 2016 framed thereunder.

(v) That the respondent may kindly be directed to not acquire the subjected land of petitioner and restrained to demolish any construction made over / attached to it without paying a due compensation under RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and Rajasthan Rules, 2016 or

(vi) That or in alternate, the respondents may kindly be directed to allot a commercial converted plot of same area (i.e. acquired area) on the 100 feet main road within the 5 kilometer radius in Udaipur city as prayed by the petitioner in the representation dated 11.08.2025 (Annexure-9) or

(vii) That a suitable compensation in lieu of the acquisition of subjected land along with the compensation for constructed cattle shed and constructed boundary wall 300 feet may kindly be granted to the petitioner as per the Act, 2013 and the Rules, 2016.

(viii) That any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 05:52:50 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6508] (3 of 5) [CW-18408/2025]

(ix) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."

2. Explaining facts of the case, learned counsel for petitioner

stated that petitioner is holding valid title and possession over an

agricultural land of Khasra No. 352, 353, 354, 355, 356/1 &

357/1, measuring 0.2710 hectare, and a cattle shed (Baada)

along with boundary wall is constructed over the said land. The

petitioner further stated that the respondent--Udaipur

Development Authority is undertaking a project for widening the

road from Fatehpur Circle to Badi Main Road and that petitioner's

land falls within the alignment of the said project, as the same is

situated on the main road between Shilpgram Tiraha and Hotel JW

Marriott.

2.2 It is also stated that as per information obtained under the

Right to Information Act, work order for construction of the road

has been issued and that the road is proposed to run along the

petitioner's land. The details regarding the land upon which road-

widening project is going to be implemented, have not been

furnished by the respondents. The petitioner expressed

apprehension that in the process of widening the road,

respondents intend to demolish the petitioner's boundary wall and

construct the road over the part of petitioner's land without first

acquiring the same in accordance with the provisions of the Right

to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("RFCTLARR Act,

2013").

2.3 On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, writ petition was filed

praying for restraining the respondents from demolishing the

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 05:52:50 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6508] (4 of 5) [CW-18408/2025]

petitioner's boundary wall and from using the petitioner's land

without first acquiring the same in accordance with law.

3. Countering the submissions made on behalf of petitioner, Mr.

Vijay Purohit, learned counsel appearing for respondent - Udaipur

Development Authority raised preliminary objection that writ

petition preferred on false and misleading facts and the same is

based on unfounded apprehensions and assumptions. It is stated

that construction of widening the road has already been completed

and same does not involve any part of land owned and possessed

by petitioner.

3.1 Counsel for respondent further submitted that, as a matter

of fact, petitioner's land does not fall in the entire plan for the

project of construction/widening of the road. Therefore, there was

no question of acquiring petitioner's land or demolishing the

boundary wall. Said averment is specifically mentioned in reply to

the writ petition filed on behalf of respondent-UDA. For ready

reference, para 4 of the reply is quoted below:-

"....

4. That the contents of para 4 of the writ petition are not admitted, hence denied as far as the say of the petitioner that the widening of the road has been proceeded ahead and how the respondents are proceeding to acquired the petitioner's agricultural land is concerned. The said contention is an outcome of misplaced apprehension. The humble answering authorities have not so far touched the land of the petitioner nor the same has been acquired. Therefore, in view of the fact that the land has neither been touched nor acquired, as such, no notice or acquisition is required to b issued/published. The say of the petitioner with respect to marking is a misconception in the mind of the petitioner. The marking as such what has been done on the roadside is with respect to the dimensions/width of the

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 05:52:50 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6508] (5 of 5) [CW-18408/2025]

proposed widening of the road and as such, in the said process of widening of the road, the land of the petitioner/property of the petitioner has not been touched so far. Not even an inch of the property belonging of the petitioner has been taken by the humble answering authority for construction/widening of the road. The say of the petitioner is devoid of merits and an outcome of misplaced apprehension/misconception. The say of the petitioner is unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. AS such, the contention of deserves to be discarded."

4. This Court finds that as per the clear admission on part of

the respondents, land of petitioner is not required for the project

of widening/construction of road and neither the boundary wall of

petitioner is demolished nor petitioner's land is utilised in the said

project. The work of construction/widening of road is also

completed and there had been no reason for acquisition of land of

the petitioner.

5. It is a well settled position of law that writ petitions are not

maintainable merely on the basis of apprehensions, baseless

assumptions or speculative fears without any real cause of action

regarding actual violation of legal rights or an imminent threat

thereto.