[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vahidan Bano vs The State Of Rajasthan on 29 January, 2026
[2025:RJ-JD:55260-DB] (1 of 7) [SAW-46/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 46/2019
1. Smt. Vahidan Bano W/o Late Sh. Haneef Khan, Aged
About 70 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Pathano Ka Mohalla,,
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
2. Sh. Shabbir Khan S/o Late Sh. Haneef Khan,, Aged About
59 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o 127, Anand Nagar, Makrana,
Dist. Nagaur, Rajasthan.
3. Sh. Salim Khan S/o Late Sh. Haneef Khan,, Aged About
47 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Pathano Ka Mohalla, Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
4. Sh. Iqbal Khan S/o Late Sh. Haneef Khan,, Aged About 45
Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Pathano Ka Mohalla, Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
5. Sh. Abdul Salam Khan S/o Late Sh. Haneef Khan,, Aged
About 46 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Pathano Ka Mohalla,
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
6. Smt. Rafikan D/o Late Sh. Haneef Khan,, Aged About 60
Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Regar Basti, Barli, Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
7. Smt. Hamida Khan D/o Late Sh. Haneef Khan,, Aged
About 57 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Near Masijid, Naya
Darwaja, Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Revenue Department, Through
Its Secretary, Jaipur.
2. The Tehsildar, Nagaur, Through Its Naib Tehsildar, District
Nagaur (Rajasthan).
3. The Learned District Collector, Nagaur.
4. The Learned Civil Court, Nagaur.
5. Madi Bai Government Girls College, Through Principal,
Nagaur.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 29/01/2026 at 04:56:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/01/2026 at 08:47:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55260-DB] (2 of 7) [SAW-46/2019]
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mohit Singhvi
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aditi Sharma for
Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Judgment
Date of conclusion of arguments: 04th December 2025
Date on which judgment was reserved: 04th December 2025
Whether the full judgment or only
the operative part is pronounced: Full Judgment
Date of pronouncement: 29th January 2026
Per : Baljinder Singh Sandhu, J
1. The present special appeal has been filed by the petitioners
aggrieved against the order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the
learned Single Judge, by which, the writ petition preferred by the
petitioners was dismissed while granting them liberty to file
appropriate proceedings for demarcation/identification of the land
claimed by them.
2. The writ petition was preferred against the order dated
14.10.2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Nagaur on an application
under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC as well as the order dated
11.01.2018 passed by the District Collector, Nagaur on an
application under Section 11A read with Section 12 of the
Rajasthan Religious Building & Premises Act, 1954 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act of 1954") for removal of encroachment
made on public land.
(Uploaded on 29/01/2026 at 04:56:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55260-DB] (3 of 7) [SAW-46/2019]
3. It is alleged by the petitioners that they were allotted 10
bighas of land situated in Khasra No.379 way-back in the year
1968 and Khatedari rights were given to them. Khasra No.379 has
total 144.3 bighas of land. Subsequently, out of the said land of
Khasra No.379, 13 bighas of land was allotted to respondent No.5
- Madi Bai Government Girls College, Nagaur (for short 'the
College') vide order dated 14.05.2002. The total land allotted to
the College was 66.10 bighas, out of which, 53.10 bighas of land
was from Khasra No.379/790 and 13 bighas of land was from
Khasra No.379.
4. The order dated 21.12.1968 passed in favour of the
petitioners was never executed and the land was continued as gair
mumkin agore. This order was passed ex parte and in light of the
judgment passed by this Court in Abdul Rahman Vs. State of
Rajasthan, reported in 2004 (4) WLC (Raj.) 435, a reference
was made by the District Collector before the Board of Revenue
for setting aside the allotment, however, the Board of Revenue,
vide order dated 17.12.2019, dismissed the reference on the
ground that out of 144.3 bighas of land several allotments have
been made and constructions have been raised, and the land
seized to be an agore land. The order has been placed on record
in the Special Appeal.
5. The second line of fact is that, as stated above, 13 bighas of
land was allotted from Khasra No.379 to the respondent No.5-the
College vide order dated 14.05.2002 and this order was
challenged by Shri Haneef Khan before the Revenue Appellate
(Uploaded on 29/01/2026 at 04:56:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55260-DB] (4 of 7) [SAW-46/2019]
Authority, Nagaur (for short 'the RAA'). The RAA, vide order dated
19.06.2004, has partly allowed the appeal of Haneef Khan while
granting permanent injunction over 10 bighas of his allotment.
Further, vide order dated 19.06.2004, the RAA has protected
possession of appellant-Haneef Khan on 10 bighas of land of
Khasra No.379 while holding that 10 bighas of land of appellant-
Haneef Khan is separate from the land allotted to respondent
No.5-the College. However, even in that order, there is no finding
regarding identification of the land of petitioner. Therefore, no
interference was made in the order of allotment dated 14.05.2002
to the respondent No.5-the College. Another reason for passing
the said order was pendency of reference before the Board of
Revenue.
6. Aggrieved against the order dated 19.06.2004, State
preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, which has been
dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 01.12.2020
relying on the fact that since reference has been dismissed Board
of Revenue, and land of respondent No.5-the College is different,
therefore, there was no error in the order of RAA. The order dated
01.12.2020 has also been placed on record in the present Special
Appeal under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Therefore, as per the same,
it is clear that 10 bighas of khatedari land of the petitioner is not
demarcated and the petitioners never got the order executed.
However, 13 bighas of land that has been allotted to respondent
No.5-the College from Khasra No.379 is a different land, which is
clear from the order of the RAA dated 19.06.2004 as well as the
order of the Board of Revenue dated 01.12.2020.
(Uploaded on 29/01/2026 at 04:56:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55260-DB] (5 of 7) [SAW-46/2019]
7. The order under challenge in the writ petition was order of
the District Collector, Nagaur dated 11.01.2018, by which the
directions were issued to remove one Shrine (referred as Mazar)
alleged to have come up on the land of Khasra No.379 and
proceedings were initiated against Ali Asgar and the people of
Muslim community. In this order as well, it is clearly stated that
the land on which Mazar has come up belongs to the College and
the same is separate from the land of 10 bighas of land of Haneef
Khan.
8. The District Collector, Nagaur went on to pass order
protecting the original structure of the Mazar and ordered to
remove rest of the encroachments only, to maintain peace and
tranquility in the society, although the Mazar was also an
encroachment.
9. A civil suit was also preferred by Ali Asgar, in which an
application for interim injunction was filed, the application was
partly allowed and it was directed to take action for removal only
by adopting due process of law. These orders dated 14.10.2017 as
well as 11.01.2018 were challenged by the petitioners in the writ
petition. It is clear that the petitioners had not filed the suit nor
were they party to the proceedings. Moreover, from the facts
narrated above, it is clear that both the impugned orders are
regarding Mazar that has come up on the land of Khasra No.379
and the same has been found to be on the land of respondent
No.5-College.
(Uploaded on 29/01/2026 at 04:56:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55260-DB] (6 of 7) [SAW-46/2019]
10. The appeal of Hanif Khan, decided by the RAA vide order
dated 19.06.2004 and the order dated 01.12.2020 passed by the
Board of Revenue, clearly state that 10 bighas of land of
petitioners as well as 13 bighas of the land of respondent No.5-
College are different. Further, both subsequent orders passed by
the Board of Revenue dated 17.12.2019 dismissing the reference
of the State, as well as the order dated 01.12.2020 by which the
appeal of the State filed against the order dated 19.06.2020 was
rejected, does not disturb the allotment of the land to the college.
11. In view above, the petitioners have no say in the land which
has been allotted to respondent No.5-College and therefore, they
cannot be in any manner aggrieved against the orders dated
14.10.2017 as well as 11.01.2018 challenged in the writ petition.
Even other wise the order of the civil court only allowed action to
be taken in accordance with law, and the district collector has
taken action under the Act of 1954, and has protected the original
structure of the Mazar. Hence, there is no illegality in the orders.
The learned single judge has considered the entire material on
record and has passed a reasoned order. We see no ground to
interfere in the order of the learned single judge dated
14.12.2018, and the same is upheld.
12. So far as 10 bighas of land allotted to the petitioners vide
order dated 21.12.1968 is concerned, the same stands subject to
subsequent adjudication by the State authorities. This land
however has not been identified or recorded in the name of the
petitioners, and the learned Single Judge has already granted
(Uploaded on 29/01/2026 at 04:56:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55260-DB] (7 of 7) [SAW-46/2019]
liberty to the petitioners to initiate appropriate proceedings
regarding 10 bighas of land for its demarcation/identification.
Hence the petitioners would be at liberty to file appropriate
application in this regard.
13. Before parting we make it clear that, we have not
commented anything on merits or approved the order passed by
the BOR dated 17.12.2019 as well as order dated 01.12.2020. Any
challenge laid to these orders or any proceedings initiated in
pursuant thereto will be decided on their own merits.
14. With these observations, the present special appeal is
disposed of.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ
S/164 - ms rathore
(Uploaded on 29/01/2026 at 04:56:21 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
