[2025:RJ-JD:53846]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24127/2025

1. Andaram S/o Dularam, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Kashipura, Dugoli, Nagaur (Rajasthan).

2. Tilok Ram S/o Ramuram, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Kashipura, Dugoli, Nagaur (Rajasthan).

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Nagaur.

3. The Sdo, Jayal, Nagaur.

4. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Jayal, Nagaur.

5. Shri Lekhram Godara S/o Shri Sukharam, R/o Kashipura, Nagaur (Rajasthan).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jamvant Gurjar HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

15/12/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed by counsel representing the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming following relief(s):

“xxxxxxx A. By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the impugned notices dt 24.11.2025 (ΑΝNEXURE-4) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

B. By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the record of the case no.01/2025 pending before the Teshildar Jayal may kindly be called for.

xxxxxx”

2. The petitioners are bona fide khatedars with undisputed rights over their agricultural land in Khasra Nos.1398 and 1348, Village Kashipura, Patwar Circle Dugoli, as confirmed by revenue records including jamabandi and khasra maps. On 27.10.2025, the private respondent lodged a frivolous complaint alleging a "walkway" on petitioners' private khatedari land, falsely claiming it as a katani way amid encroachments on the actual path. Patwari reports dated 28.10.2025 and 11.11.2025 unequivocally exposed this foul play: the disputed path is neither a katani way nor recorded as such in revenue records—it is purely private khatedari land belonging to petitioners. Despite these authoritative findings debunking the complaint, Tehsildar Jayal mechanically issued illegal notices to petitioners under Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 on 24.11.2025, brazenly ignoring binding revenue evidence and due process. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to quash the notices and vindicate their sacrosanct khatedari rights.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in settled and peaceful possession of the property in question. It is only on the basis of a frivolous application filed by the private respondent No.5 that the respondent–authorities have proceeded to issue the impugned Notice dated 24.11.2025 under Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1955’). He submits that the Mauka Report dated 11.11.2025 as well as the earlier Report dated 28.10.2025 categorically record that the so-called disputed walkway is not a katani way and is not entered or recognized as such in the revenue record. Despite these unambiguous findings of the field staff, the respondents have, in a mechanical and arbitrary manner, issued the notice to the petitioners. He submits that the impugned notice is void ab initio and stands vitiated by complete non-application of mind, inasmuch as the respondents have ignored and failed to take into consideration the aforesaid Reports. Since the very initiation of proceedings under Section 251 of the Act of 1955 is ex-facie illegal and without jurisdiction, the petitioners, treating the notice as bad in law, have chosen not to file any reply to the same.

4. Heard.

5. This Court notices that pursuant to the proceedings initiated under Section 251 of the Act of 1955, the petitioners were served with the Notice dated 24.11.2025; whereby, they were specifically required to remove the alleged encroachment from the blocked road on or before 01.12.2025. By the same notice, they were afforded adequate opportunity to appear before the competent revenue authority, either in person or through a pleader, on 01.12.2025 and to present their case. The notice further made it abundantly clear that in the event of non-appearan