Khemraj vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3550 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 3550 Raj
Judgement Date : 9 March, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Khemraj vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 9 March, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:11468]                     (1 of 4)                         [CW-5297/2026]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5297/2026

Khemraj S/o Shri Jeta Gameti, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of
Uthnol, Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand(Raj)
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
         Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt Of
         Rajastghan, Jaipur
2.       The District Collector, Rajsamand
3.       The Tehsildar, Nathdwara, District- Rajsamand
4.       The Gram Panchayat Uthnol, District-Rajsamand Through
         Sarpanch/gram Vikas Adhikari
5.       Narayan S/o Vijay Singh, Resident Of Jetela, Uthnol,
         Tehsil - Nathdwara, District Rajsamand
                                                                   ----Respondents


 For Petitioner(s)             :    Mr. Jayant Jain


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

09/03/2026

1. The present writ petition is filed seeking appropriate

directions to the respondents for removal of the alleged illegal

encroachment, in accordance with the mauka report dated

17.09.2025 (Annex.-5) prepared by the Patwari, Village Uthnol,

Tehsil Nathdwara, District Rajsamand.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner

owns agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 76 (Old Khasra No.

147), situated in revenue village Uthnol, Tehsil Nathdwara, District

Rajsamand. It is alleged that Respondent No. 5 has unauthorizedly

constructed a washroom/bathroom over the public way, thereby (Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 07:16:34 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11468] (2 of 4) [CW-5297/2026]

obstructing and blocking access to the petitioner's agricultural

land. The said construction encroaches upon the dammer (tar)

road, resulting in its narrowing, and constitutes a continuous

source of inconvenience and potential accidents on this public way.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that,

consequent to the petitioner's complaint, the Patwari, Village

Uthnol, conducted a site inspection; the resultant report,

confirming Respondent No. 5's encroachment through construction

of a washroom/bathroom, was forwarded to the Tehsildar,

Nathdwara. Notwithstanding submission of this report, the

respondent authorities have failed to take any action,

necessitating the present writ petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

material available on record.

5. Upon scrutinizing the said record, this Court notes that a

specific allegation has been levelled by the petitioner that

Respondent No. 5 has raised construction of a

bathroom/washroom over the Dammer road/public way, resulting

in narrowing of the width of public way leading to the agricultural

land of the petitioner. However, an appraisal of the site inspection

report prepared by the Patwari, Village Uthnol, more particularly,

the site map prepared along with the said report, reveals that the

washroom/bathroom stated to have been constructed by

Respondent No. 5, is situated over the land bearing Araji No.

1905, which is not recorded as Gair Mumkin Rasta/Public Way in

the revenue record. The site map further shows that the

construction is raised near the public way and does not obstruct or

narrow the width of the existing public way.

(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 07:16:34 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11468] (3 of 4) [CW-5297/2026]

6. The Patwari, Village Uthnol, has further reported that upon

the land of Araji/Khasra No. 1905, some 20-25 residential houses

have already been constructed, with families in occupation. The

alleged encroachment i.e., washroom/bathroom is noted to have

been constructed approximately 9-10 years prior. In light of this

report, the petitioner's allegation of construction over the public

way occasioning obstruction, appears to be misconceived and

unsupported by the record. The petitioner has also failed to

substantiate any obstruction to access over his agricultural land.

7. As mentioned above, nearly 20-25 residential houses have

been constructed over Khasra No. 1905. Yet, the petitioner has

selectively targeted only Respondent No. 5's construction through

his complaint and the present petition. This pick-and-choose

approach casts serious doubt on the petitioner's bona fides,

invoking the salutary principle that one approaching this Court

must do so with clean hands.

8. While this Court cannot countenance or legitimize

encroachments over government or common land, the

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 can also not be

invoked by private litigants merely to ventilate personal vendettas

or settle private scores. However, it shall always remain open to

the competent government authorities to take appropriate action

in accordance with law against any encroachment made upon

government land.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008)

12 SCC 481 held that petitioner invoking writ jurisdiction, must

come with clean hands. Relevant paragraph is reproduced herein

below:

(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 07:16:34 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11468] (4 of 4) [CW-5297/2026]

"34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim."

10. A writ petition of this nature, filed by a private individual

adopting a selective, targeted approach against another private

party, cannot be entertained. The petitioner has approached this

Court with unclean hands, singling out Respondent No. 5's

construction amid 20-25 analogous structures on the same

khasra, revealing oblique motives and a lack of bona fides, that

too on false allegations of having obstruction on public way.

Entertaining such pleas would open the floodgates to frivolous and

vexatious litigation, pursued by litigants like the petitioner to

subserve their oblique motives.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and judicial

pronouncements, the present writ petition is bereft of merit and

deserves to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. All pending

applications, including the stay application(s), also stand

disposed of.

(SANJEET PUROHIT),J 82-jatin-shashikant/-

(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 07:16:34 PM)