[2026:RJ-JD:4634-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 235/2026 Mukesh Kumar S/o Bhanwar Lal Jain, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Jabh, District Jalore.

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. Department Of Revenue (Group-I), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur Through Joint Secretary.

3. Department Of Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Through Registrar, Revenue Circle Ajmer.

4. District Collector, Jalore.

5. The Divisional Commissioner, Jalore.

6. Tehsildar (Land Revenue), Jalore.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Singh Daspan, Sr. Adv with Ms. Priyanka Borana For Respondent(s) : Mr. I.R Choudhary, AAG with Mr. Pawan Bharti &

Mr. Kuldeep Singh Solanki HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

27/01/2026

1. The issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra and already stands adjudicated by this Court at Jaipur Bench in Sheela Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected matters¹ along with other connected matters.

1 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7718/2025, decided on 14.11.2025 In the said writ petitions, this Court has considered the issue and held as under:

“145. After analysing the said contention and giving thoughtful consideration to the provisions of the PESA Act, it is clear that the participation of the Gram Sabha is mandated only for the functions as prescribed under Section 4 of the PESA Act, which deals with the resettlement, rehabilitation or development of the TSP area. In absence of any specific statutory requirement prescribed under the Constitution of India or the PESA Act, it cannot be held that the prior consultation of the Gram Sabha for the purpose of delimitation, TSP Area is mandatory. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners in Bhanwar Lal Mundra (supra) and other judgments are not related to the issue so raised, therefore, the same are not applicable in the facts of the present case. Hence, the challenge given by the petitioners to the delimitation notifications on such grounds fails.

146. In some of the writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the final notifications on the ground that on earlier occasion, some part of the Panchayat area has been included, whereas, while issuing the notifications impugned, the said notifications were withdrawn or the rural area is again excluded from the Municipality. Counsels for the petitioners contended that said exercise clearly shows arbitrary exercise of the powers by the State authorities and the same cannot be allowed to be sustained.

147. Learned Advocate General while responding to the said challenge, has reiterated the submission regarding scope of interference of this Court in such matters. It is contended that once the State Government after thoughtful consideration of, overall factors has taken a conscious decision, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed upon a recent judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pankaj Panwar (supra). The relevant part of the judgment is quoted below:

"3. According to the petitioners, the Sub-divisional Officer at Raniwada started the process for creating 20 wards in the erstwhile Gram Panchayat Raniwada and for that purpose a notice inviting objection was published on 27th March 2025. The petitioners have produced on record the copies of notifications pertaining to Gram Panchayats Jhakhal and Dundlod both dated 02nd September 2024 to demonstrate that similar exercises were undertaken in other Gram Panchayats. However, the said process was abruptly halted because the Government Notification dated 26th March 2025 came to be issued and thereby the previous Notification dated 20th May 2022 was withdrawn. Criticizing the Government action in withdrawing the Notification date