The High Court emphasized its limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, affirming that intervention is only warranted in cases of clear injustice, and upheld that the petitioner failed to show a prima facie case for injunctive relief.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

“(i) The Judgment dtd. 06.11.2025 (Annexure-5) passed by Learned Additional District Judge, Jayal (Nagaur), in Civil Appeal decree no. 32/2023 (General Public of Dugstau & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) by which appeal of the petitioners-plaintiff was dismissed, may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The Judgment dated 18.01.2023 (Annexure-4) bearing civil origina suit no. 05/2022 (General Public of Dugstau & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) passed by Learned Civil Judge, Jayal District Nagaur by which application of the petitioners-plaintiff filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC was rejected, may deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(iii) The prayer made in the T.I. application may kindly be allowed and respondents may kindly be directed to construct the road in the middle of the land in dispute, after removing the encroachments, till then construction may kindly be stopped.

(iv) Pass any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(v) Allow cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.”

2. The facts in succinct giving rise to present writ petition are that a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction is being filed in representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8(1) CPC by the villagers of Village Dugstau, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur against the respondent Government officials as well as respondent Nos. 8 to 15, R/o Village Dugstau, who are alleged to be encroachers over the public way. It was stated that a Katani road is going from Village Yugstau to Mataji and the same is recorded in the revenue record as non feasible path. The plaintiffs stated that the aforementioned road running from khasra no. 1288 to 1353 has different widths at different locations due to the encroachment being made by the private persons, and inspite of the complaint being made by the plaintiffs, no action was being taken for removal of encroachment. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed, wherein it is stated that construction of a road at a different location is being undertaken and, therefore, the order of temporary injunction was being prayed.

3. The learned trial Court, while passing the order dated 18.1.2023, observed that the plaintiffs failed to prima facie establish that the land over which the construction of road is being carried out, is not in accordance with the revenue record, or that any encroachment was being made upon the land recorded as non a feasible path by the private respondents. The learned trial Court also observed that the averments made in the plaint as well as the material available on record nowhere establish the extent of the alleged encroachment, as no details in this regard were furnished by the plaintiff/petitioners. The learned trial Court also observed that the earthwork of the road had already been completed and work of laying gravel is being carried out for construction of the road under the Government Road Construction Scheme.

Learned trial court thus held that the petitioners have failed to establish the prima facie case. While dealing with issues of balance of convenience and irreparable injury, learned trial Court observed that since a public road is being constructed under a government road construction project, any temporary injunction being granted will cause irreparable injury to the public at large and not to the petitioners-plaintiffs. On the basis of the said observations, the learned court vide order dated 18.01.2023 rejected the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

4.