[2025:RJ-JD:43122]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12997/2018 Ganpat Ram S/o Sawaji, Aged About 42 Years, Village Budiwada, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Public Works, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Balotra, District Barmer.

3. Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Balotra, District Barmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sukha Dev For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aishwarya Anand Mr. Tushar Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

25/09/2025

1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition with following prayers:-

“A. It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed, B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction order may kindly issued and the act of respondents may kindly be declared illegal while construction of the road from the petitioner’s khatedari land of khasra No.409 of Village Budiwada, Panchayat Samiti, Balotra.

C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction that the respondents may kindly be directed to construct the Road in dispute after a proper demarcation of the Petitioner’s land as well as Gair Mumkin Way of Khasra No.411.

D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction that the respondents may kindly be restrained to construct the road from Petitioner’s land i.e. khasra no.409 of Village Budiwada and further directed to remove the material lying in the Petitioner’s land.

E. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem it just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued.

F. Costs of this writ petition may kindly be may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents referred (Annexure-R/1) and raised objection that with the same prayers and in respect of same land as well as the alleged way, one revenue suit No.192/2018 has already been filed by the petitioner, wherein following prayers have been made:-

Þ1- izfroknhx.k ds fo:) bl vk”; dh LFkk;h fu’ks|kKk tkjh dh tkos fd izfroknhx.k Lo;a muds v/khuLFk deZpkjh] ,tsUV] etnwj oknhx.k dks muds [kkrsnkjh ds [ksr [kljk uEcj 409 jdck 60- 04 ch?kk ljgn ekStk cqM+hokM+k ij ls csn[kyh ugha djsa u oknhx.k ds dCtk dkLr esa gLrk{ksi n[ky ugha ns u djsa u oknhx.k ds mijksDr [kljs ds fdlh Hkw&Hkkx ij lM+dk dk fuekZ.k dj Hkwfe dks uqdlku igqapk dj ukdkfct dkLr ugha djsaA

02- vxj nkSjkus nkok izfroknhx.k oknhx.k dh [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe [kljk la[;k 409 ds HkwHkkx uD”kk ifjf”k’V Þvß esa ekdZ A,B,E ij uktk;t n[ky dj lM+d fuekZ.k dj ns rks mudk n[ky crkSj vfrØeh gksus ls mijksDr Hkwfe jdck 1 ch?kk ij ls n[ky gVk;k tkdj Hkwfe dk dCtk oknhx.k dks fnyok;k tkosA

03- [kpkZ okn oknhx.k dks nsjkosaA

04- vU; vuqrks”k tks cgd oknhx.k dks nsjkosaAß

3. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner has deliberately concealed the fact from this Court with regard to filing of the revenue suit and in fact he is pursuing his remedy parallel before the Revenue Court as well as before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid factual aspect.

5. Heard and considered.

6. It is settled proposition of law that one who has approached the writ court, must come with clean hands. In the instant case, the fact of filing revenue suit in respect of same land and same alleged way has been deliberately suppressed by the petitioner. Even otherwise, no person can be allowed to pursue parallel remedy for the same relief before two different Courts.

7. In view of above, where for the same relief, the petitioner has already maintained a revenue suit, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed.

8. Pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.

(ANAND SHARMA),J Daksh/Jatin-189