[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Pokar Ram vs Sub-Divisional Authority/Revenue ... on 12 March, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:11907]                   (1 of 6)                    [CW-2404/2026]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                            JODHPUR
             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2404/2026

Pokar Ram S/o Bakhtaram, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of
Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar Halka Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwari, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
                                                       ----Petitioner
                                Versus
1.     Sub-Divisional Authority/revenue Authorities, Tehsil Tiwri,
       District Jodhpur.
2.     Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur Through Its
       Secretary.
3.     Aasuram S/o Mangilal, R/o Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar
       Halka Baalawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4.     Khetaram S/o Mangilal, Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar Halka
       Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5.     Gumanaram S/o Mangilal, Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar Halka
       Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
6.     Gabu Devi W/o Khetaram, Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar
       Halka Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
7.     Jetha Ram W/o Omaram, Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar Halka
       Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
8.     Vetanram S/o Omaram, R/o Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar
       Halka Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
9.     Manohar, R/o Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar Halka Baalrawa,
       Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
10.    Sita Devi W/o Omram, R/o Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar
       Halka Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
11.    Jena W/o Pukhraj, R/o Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar Halka
       Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
12.    Ganesh S/o Pukhraj, R/o Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar Halka
       Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
13.    Tarachand S/o Pukhraj, R/o Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar
       Halka Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
14.    Gopikishan S/o Pukhraj, R/o Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar
       Halka Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
15.    Imarti W/o Gumanaram, R/o Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar
       Halka Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
16.    Chandranaram S/o Pukhraj, R/o Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar
       Halka Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
17.    Suzuki W/o Aasuram, R/o Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar Halka
       Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
                                                   ----Respondents



 For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Tanay Sharma
 For Respondent(s)          :




                      (Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 10:18:13 AM)
                     (Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:36:19 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:11907]                    (2 of 6)                       [CW-2404/2026]

            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

12/03/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking consideration

of the petitioner's representations for removal of the names of

respondents No. 2 to 17 from the land in question, and further for

issuance of directions to the competent authorities to consider the

petitioner's request for regularization of the said land in his favour.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in

question has been in possession of the petitioner, and in this

regard a recommendation for its regularisation in favour of the

petitioner was made as far back as in the year 1993.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, and thereafter the

petitioner himself, has remained in continuous possession of the

land in question. However, the names of private respondents No. 2

to 17 have been recorded in the revenue record, and therefore a

prayer has been made for deletion of their names from the said

record.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

material available on record.

5. This Court finds that although the present writ petition has

been filed seeking a direction to the respondent-authorities to

consider and decide the petitioner's representation, no such

representation has been placed on record. Further, there is no

averment in the writ petition indicating that the petitioner has

approached the respondent-authorities by submitting any

representation seeking the reliefs prayed for in the present

petition.

(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 10:18:13 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11907] (3 of 6) [CW-2404/2026]

5.1 The law in this regard is well settled that a person cannot

invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and seek

issuance of a writ of mandamus without first approaching the

competent authority and making a representation for redressal of

his grievance.

5.2 The Hon'ble Apex Court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate

Ltd. v. Union of India, (1974) 2 SCC 630 held that demand

and its subsequent refusal is sine qua non for issuance of writ of

mandamus. The relevant paragraph is reproduced herein below:

"24. As the appeals fail on merits we need not discuss the technical difficulty which an application for a writ of certiorari would encounter when no quasi-judicial proceeding was before the High Court. The powers of the High Court under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well recognised rule that no writ or order in the nature of a mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, which is subject to certain exceptions, applied by us, as it is in England, when a writ of mandamus is asked for, could be stated as we find it set out in Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Edn.), Vol. 13, p. 106):

"As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand was met by a refusal.""

5.3 Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amrit Lal Berry v.

CCE, (1975) 4 SCC 714 reiterated the same as follows:

"25. In the petition of K.N. Kapur and others, we do not even find an assertion that any representation was made against any violation of a petitioner's right. Hence, the Rule recognised by this Court in Kamini Kumar Das Choudhury v. State of W.B. [(1972) 2 SCC 420, 426 (Para 11): AIR 1972 SC 2060, 2065] that a demand for justice and its refusal must precede the filing of a petition asking for direction or writ of mandamus, would also operate against the petitioners."

(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 10:18:13 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11907] (4 of 6) [CW-2404/2026]

5.4 Therefore, the present writ petition seeking issuance of

mandamus without first making a representation/demand to

concerned authorities, is liable to be dismissed on this ground

alone.

6. The other prayer made in the writ petition is for deletion of

the names of private respondents No. 2 to 17 from the revenue

record. In this regard, this Court finds that adequate and

efficacious remedies are available under the revenue laws for

correction of revenue entries, deletion of the names of khatedari

tenants, or for effecting changes in the revenue record.

6.1 This Hon'ble High Court in Revataram & Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Anr.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13572/15 held

that where law provides for effective and efficacious remedy, the

same must be exhausted first before invoking extraordinary

jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226. The relevant

paragraph is reproduced herein below:

"3. Indisputably, land alleged to be in unauthorised occupation of the petitioner is oran land. By virtue of provisions of Section 16 (vi) of the Act, the gair mumkin oran land being the land held for public purpose/work of public utility, no khatedari rights could accrue in respect thereof. Be that as it may, the order impugned passed by the Tehsildar u/s 91 of the Act is appealable before the Collector under the provisions of Section 75 of the Act and therefore, in view of the effective and efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioners under the relevant Statute, there is absolutely no reason as to why the petitioners should be permitted to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

6.2 Therefore, the present writ petition, having been filed

directly before this Court without exhausting statutory alternative

remedy, deserves to be dismissed on this ground as well.

7. So far as the prayer made by the petitioner regarding

regularisation of the land in pursuance of the order dated

(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 10:18:13 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11907] (5 of 6) [CW-2404/2026]

17.03.1993 is concerned, this Court finds that the said prayer has

been raised after an inordinate delay of about 23 years.

7.1 The Hon'ble Apex Court in Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of

W.B., (2009) 1 SCC 768 held that inordinate delay and laches is

a reasonable ground for refusing relief under Article 226. The

relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below:

"56. We are unable to uphold the contention. It is no doubt true that there can be no waiver of fundamental right. But while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226, 227 or 136 of the Constitution, this Court takes into account certain factors and one of such considerations is delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. It is well settled that power to issue a writ is discretionary. One of the grounds for refusing reliefs under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches.

57. If the petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a writ court, he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground for refusing to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction. The underlying object of this principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters which have already been disposed of or settled or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime (vide State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006 : (1964) 6 SCR 261] , Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Court [AIR 1967 SC 1450] and Bhoop Singh v. Union of India [(1992) 3 SCC 136 : (1992) 21 ATC 675 : (1992) 2 SCR 969] ). This principle applies even in case of an infringement of fundamental right (vide Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi [(1969) 1 SCC 110] , Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports [(1969) 1 SCC 185] and Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India [(1970) 1 SCC 84] )."

7.2 Therefore, the present writ petition discloses no cogent

explanation or justification for the inordinate delay. In the absence

of any satisfactory cause, the relief sought cannot be granted.

8. Moreover, it is trite law that disputed questions of fact cannot

be adjudicated by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under

Article 226. This Hon'ble High Court in M.A. Qureshi v. Union of

India, 2004 SCC OnLine Raj 257 reiterated the same. Relevant

paragraph is reproduced herein (Uploaded below:

on 17/03/2026 at 10:18:13 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11907] (6 of 6) [CW-2404/2026]

"20. It may be stated here that the High Court may refuse to exercise discretion under Article 226 where the writ petition raises highly disputed questions of facts as the same cannot be gone into and decided in a summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because they require a detailed examination of the evidence and the object of Article 226 is the enforcer not the establishment of a right or title."

8.1 Therefore, the present writ petition is further liable to be

dismissed on the ground that it involves several disputed

questions of fact relating to the claim and title of the petitioner, as

well as the alleged possession of the petitioner over the land in

question.

9. As an upshot of the discussions made hereinabove, the

present writ petition has been filed without the petitioner first

approaching the respondent-authorities by way of submitting any

representation, and without availing the statutory remedies

available under the revenue laws. The petition has also been filed

after an inordinate delay of about 23 years and further involves

disputed questions of fact.