Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 12290

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Sanjeet Purohit, J
Hameer Khan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21836/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ankur Mathur, Harshwardhan Thanvi
For the Respondents: Sanjay Raj Paliwal

A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against an eviction order passed under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, when an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available; furthermore, issues already adjudicated in earlier writ petitions are barred by the principles of res judicata.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 - Section 91 - Alleged encroachment on public land - Writ petition challenging eviction notice and subsequent order - Maintainability - Alternative statutory remedy available under the Act - Doctrine of exhaustion of remedies - Held, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when an efficacious statutory appeal is prescribed under the statute. (Paras 7.1, 8, 9)

(B) Res Judicata - Challenge to the same notice previously adjudicated by Coordinate Bench and Division Bench - Petitioner cannot be permitted to repeatedly re-agitate the same matter where earlier rounds of litigation resulted in dismissal or direction to follow statutory process. (Paras 5.2, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged an eviction notice and a subsequent order passed by the Tehsildar under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, claiming that proceedings were initiated due to a local communal dispute. Previous attempts to challenge the eviction notice were heard by a Coordinate Bench and a Division Bench, both of which directed the petitioners to follow statutory procedures.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the challenge to the eviction notice was barred by res judicata as it was already adjudicated. Regarding the eviction order, the Court held it is appealable under the Act, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an efficacious alternative appellate remedy.

Issues: Whether a writ petition is maintainable against an eviction order passed under Section 91 of the Act when a statutory appeal mechanism exists, and whether the challenge to the initial notice is barred by res judicata.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court, adhering to the principle of self-imposed restraint regarding Article 226, held that where a statute provides for specific and adequate appellate hierarchy, the writ court should not circumvent the statutory machinery. Subsequent challenges to matters already decided in prior writ proceedings are maintainable only if they avoid re-litigation of barred issues.

Result: Petition dismissed with directions for the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within 30 days and granting temporary interim protection.

Table of Content
1. challenge to eviction notice and order under s.91 of the act. (Para 1 , 2)
2. issues previously decided are barred by res judicata. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. doctrine of alternative statutory remedy for eviction orders. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. grant of limited protection pending statutory appeal process. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

21/04/2026

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned notice dated 10.09.2025 (Annexure–3) as well as the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure–13), passed by Tehsildar, Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer, in exercise of powers under Section 91 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1956”).

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that proceedings under Section 91 of the Act of 1956, seeking to declare the petitioners as encroachers over the land in question, arose in the backdrop of a communal dispute which culminated in registration of cross FIRs bearing Nos. 108/2025 and 109/2025. It is further contended that petitioners, being members of a minority community, have been singled out on account of the said dispute, and that proceedings under Section 91 were initiated immediately thereafter.

2.1 The order dated 10.06.2025 (Annexure–13), passed by Tehsildar, Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer, has been challenged on the ground that the same was passed in a mechanical manner on the very day reply was filed on behalf of petitioners, allegedly reflecting a pre-determined mindset.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents, Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal, Government Counsel, has raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition. It is submitted that, insofar as the challenge to notice dated 10.09.2025 (Annexure–3) is concerned, the same had already been assailed by petitioners in an earlier round of litigation by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18546/2025. Coordinate Bench of this Court declined to interfere with the said notice and instead directed the petitioners to contest the proceedings before the Court of the learned Tehsildar, Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer.

3.1 It is further submitted that the said judgment dated 24.09.2025 was challenged by filing D.B. Special Writ Petition No. 1388/2025, which also came to be disposed of by Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 08.10.2025, without interfering with the impugned notice.

Insofar as the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 (Annexure–13) is concerned, learned counsel for respondents submits that the same is an appealable order and, in view of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, present writ petition is not maintainable.

4. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused material available on record.

5. This Court finds that impugned notice dated 10.09.2025 (Annexure–3) has already been challenged in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18456/2025 (Kame Khan & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan), wherein, while disposing of the writ petition on 24.09.2025, learned Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble High Court passed the following order, which, for the sake of brevity, is reproduced herein below:

“2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the present writ petition while giving liberty to the petitioners to file a reply/representation against the notice dated 10.09.2025 issued under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 within a period of two weeks from today alongwith all legal and admissible documents indicating their old possession over the land in dispute.

3. In case, a reply/representation so filed by the petitioners within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the Tehsildar Fatehgarh by way of reasoned and speaking order preferably within a period of eight weeks from receipt thereof.

4. It is made clear that till the reply/representation filed by the petitioners against the imp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 12290

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)Sanjeet Purohit, JHameer Khan – AppellantVersusState Of Rajasthan – RespondentS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21836/2025

Cases Referred (1)

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Sanjeet Purohit, J
Hameer Khan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21836/2025