SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 1864

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
NUPUR BHATI
BHURJI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 23056 / 2025



[2026:RJ-JD:4696]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23056/2025 Bhurji S/o Late Dhuliya, Aged About 80 Years, R/o Village And Post Ward No. 10, Ram Ka Munna, Tehsil Gagadtalai, Dist.

Banswara, Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The District Collector, Dist. Banswara.

3. Sub Division Officer, Bagidaura, Dist. Banswara.

4. Tehsildar, Gagadtalai, Dist. Banswara.

5. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Dist. Banswara.

6. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Ram Ka Munna, Tehsil Gagadtalai, Dist. Banswara.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.R. Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.R. Paliwal, GC HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

27/01/2026

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:

“xxxxxx

1. That the action of the respondents may kindly be declared bad in the eye of law.

2. That the respondents may kindly be restrained to raise construction of sub health center in the land situated in khasra no. 948, 949, 950, 951, 952, 953, 955, 956, 957, 958, 959 of village Ram ka munna, tehsil Gagadtalai, dist. banswara which are in ownership and in possession of the petitioner.

3. The respondents may kindly be directed to give compensation to the petitioner for his loss due to the illegal construction as aforesaid.

4. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

5. Costs of this writ petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner inherited agricultural land measuring 17 bigha 15 biswa (3.2900 hectares) in Khasra No. 87 (old), now subdivided into Khasra Nos. 948, 949, 950, 951, 952, 953, 955, 956, 957, 958, 959, 20/1125, and 20/1126, situated in Village Ram ka Munna, Tehsil Gagadtalai, District Banswara. This land originally belonged to the petitioner and his brother Bichhiya, who died intestate without Class-I heirs, vesting sole title in the petitioner. The respondents proposed constructing a health center near Anaj Godam in the village, laying its foundation stone on 09.09.2025 on earmarked land distinct from the petitioner's plot. Despite this, the respondents' contractor trespassed onto the petitioner's land, destroyed standing crops, and commenced unauthorized construction thereon. The petitioner protested verbally, urged construction on the designated site, and submitted multiple written representations with site photographs, but the respondents took no action to halt the encroachment. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. Counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having a lawful possession over the land situated at Khasra No.955 and the respondents are raising construction of a Sub-Health Centre on the said land. He further submits that the action of the respondents is unlawful, as they cannot raise construction over the said land situated at Khasra No.955, which is in lawful possession of the petitioner.

4. Counsel representing the respondents submits that in reply to the writ petition, a specific averment has been made with regard to construction of the Sub-Health Centre raised at Khasra No.954, which is recorded as Gair Mumkin land and also recorded in the name of Sub-Health Centre, Village Ram ka Munna which is a government land. He also submits that specific instructions have also been given to the representative of the Medical and Health Department to undertake the said construction in a careful and cautious manner; without disturbing the rights of the petitioner or the adjacent land holders.

5. Counsel representing the respondent-State, while drawing attention of this Court to the Mauka Raport dated 08.10.2025, which is placed along with the reply as Annex.R/2; wherein, it has bee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top