Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Pokar Ram vs Sub-Divisional Authority/Revenue … on 12 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:11907] (1 of 6) [CW-2404/2026]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2404/2026
Pokar Ram S/o Bakhtaram, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of
Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar Halka Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwari, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sub-Divisional Authority/revenue Authorities, Tehsil Tiwri,
District Jodhpur.
2. Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur Through Its
Secretary.
3. Aasuram S/o Mangilal, R/o Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar
Halka Baalawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Khetaram S/o Mangilal, Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar Halka
Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. Gumanaram S/o Mangilal, Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar Halka
Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
6. Gabu Devi W/o Khetaram, Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar
Halka Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
7. Jetha Ram W/o Omaram, Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar Halka
Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
8. Vetanram S/o Omaram, R/o Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar
Halka Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
9. Manohar, R/o Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar Halka Baalrawa,
Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
10. Sita Devi W/o Omram, R/o Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar
Halka Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
11. Jena W/o Pukhraj, R/o Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar Halka
Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
12. Ganesh S/o Pukhraj, R/o Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar Halka
Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
13. Tarachand S/o Pukhraj, R/o Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar
Halka Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
14. Gopikishan S/o Pukhraj, R/o Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar
Halka Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
15. Imarti W/o Gumanaram, R/o Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar
Halka Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
16. Chandranaram S/o Pukhraj, R/o Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar
Halka Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
17. Suzuki W/o Aasuram, R/o Jugatsingh Nagar, Patwar Halka
Baalrawa, Tehsil Tiwri, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanay Sharma
For Respondent(s) :
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 10:18:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:36:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11907] (2 of 6) [CW-2404/2026]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
12/03/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking consideration
of the petitioner’s representations for removal of the names of
respondents No. 2 to 17 from the land in question, and further for
issuance of directions to the competent authorities to consider the
petitioner’s request for regularization of the said land in his favour.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in
question has been in possession of the petitioner, and in this
regard a recommendation for its regularisation in favour of the
petitioner was made as far back as in the year 1993.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, and thereafter the
petitioner himself, has remained in continuous possession of the
land in question. However, the names of private respondents No. 2
to 17 have been recorded in the revenue record, and therefore a
prayer has been made for deletion of their names from the said
record.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
material available on record.
5. This Court finds that although the present writ petition has
been filed seeking a direction to the respondent-authorities to
consider and decide the petitioner’s representation, no such
representation has been placed on record. Further, there is no
averment in the writ petition indicating that the petitioner has
approached the respondent-authorities by submitting any
representation seeking the reliefs prayed for in the present
petition.
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 10:18:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:36:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11907] (3 of 6) [CW-2404/2026]
5.1 The law in this regard is well settled that a person cannot
invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and seek
issuance of a writ of mandamus without first approaching the
competent authority and making a representation for redressal of
his grievance.
5.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate
Ltd. v. Union of India, (1974) 2 SCC 630 held that demand
and its subsequent refusal is sine qua non for issuance of writ of
mandamus. The relevant paragraph is reproduced herein below:
“24. As the appeals fail on merits we need not discuss the
technical difficulty which an application for a writ of
certiorari would encounter when no quasi-judicial
proceeding was before the High Court. The powers of the
High Court under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the
limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject
in English practice. Nevertheless, the well recognised rule
that no writ or order in the nature of a mandamus would
issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty
applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged
breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule,
which is subject to certain exceptions, applied by us, as it is
in England, when a writ of mandamus is asked for, could be
stated as we find it set out in Halsbury’s Laws of England
(3rd Edn.), Vol. 13, p. 106):
“As a general rule the order will not be granted unless
the party complained of has known what it was he was
required to do, so that he had the means of
considering whether or not he should comply, and it
must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct
demand of that which the party seeking the
mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand
was met by a refusal.””
5.3 Moreover, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Amrit Lal Berry v.
CCE, (1975) 4 SCC 714 reiterated the same as follows:
“25. In the petition of K.N. Kapur and others, we do not
even find an assertion that any representation was made
against any violation of a petitioner’s right. Hence, the Rule
recognised by this Court in Kamini Kumar Das Choudhury v.
State of W.B. [(1972) 2 SCC 420, 426 (Para 11): AIR 1972
SC 2060, 2065] that a demand for justice and its
refusal must precede the filing of a petition asking for
direction or writ of mandamus, would also operate
against the petitioners.”
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 10:18:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:36:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11907] (4 of 6) [CW-2404/2026]
5.4 Therefore, the present writ petition seeking issuance of
mandamus without first making a representation/demand to
concerned authorities, is liable to be dismissed on this ground
alone.
6. The other prayer made in the writ petition is for deletion of
the names of private respondents No. 2 to 17 from the revenue
record. In this regard, this Court finds that adequate and
efficacious remedies are available under the revenue laws for
correction of revenue entries, deletion of the names of khatedari
tenants, or for effecting changes in the revenue record.
6.1 This Hon’ble High Court in Revataram & Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13572/15 held
that where law provides for effective and efficacious remedy, the
same must be exhausted first before invoking extraordinary
jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226. The relevant
paragraph is reproduced herein below:
“3. Indisputably, land alleged to be in unauthorised
occupation of the petitioner is oran land. By virtue of
provisions of Section 16 (vi) of the Act, the gair mumkin
oran land being the land held for public purpose/work of
public utility, no khatedari rights could accrue in respect
thereof. Be that as it may, the order impugned passed by
the Tehsildar u/s 91 of the Act is appealable before the
Collector under the provisions of Section 75 of the Act and
therefore, in view of the effective and efficacious
alternative remedy available to the petitioners under
the relevant Statute, there is absolutely no reason as
to why the petitioners should be permitted to invoke
the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
6.2 Therefore, the present writ petition, having been filed
directly before this Court without exhausting statutory alternative
remedy, deserves to be dismissed on this ground as well.
7. So far as the prayer made by the petitioner regarding
regularisation of the land in pursuance of the order dated
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 10:18:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:36:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11907] (5 of 6) [CW-2404/2026]
17.03.1993 is concerned, this Court finds that the said prayer has
been raised after an inordinate delay of about 23 years.
7.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court in Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of
W.B., (2009) 1 SCC 768 held that inordinate delay and laches is
a reasonable ground for refusing relief under Article 226. The
relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below:
“56. We are unable to uphold the contention. It is no doubt
true that there can be no waiver of fundamental right. But
while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 32,
226, 227 or 136 of the Constitution, this Court takes into
account certain factors and one of such considerations is
delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching
a writ court. It is well settled that power to issue a writ
is discretionary. One of the grounds for refusing
reliefs under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution is
that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches.
57. If the petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a
writ court, he should come to the Court at the earliest
reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in
making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good
ground for refusing to exercise such discretionary
jurisdiction. The underlying object of this principle is not to
encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters
which have already been disposed of or settled or where the
rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime (vide
State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai [AIR 1964 SC 1006 : (1964) 6
SCR 261] , Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Court [AIR 1967 SC
1450] and Bhoop Singh v. Union of India [(1992) 3 SCC 136
: (1992) 21 ATC 675 : (1992) 2 SCR 969] ). This principle
applies even in case of an infringement of fundamental right
(vide Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi [(1969) 1 SCC
110] , Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports &
Exports [(1969) 1 SCC 185] and Rabindranath Bose v.
Union of India [(1970) 1 SCC 84] ).”
7.2 Therefore, the present writ petition discloses no cogent
explanation or justification for the inordinate delay. In the absence
of any satisfactory cause, the relief sought cannot be granted.
8. Moreover, it is trite law that disputed questions of fact cannot
be adjudicated by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226. This Hon’ble High Court in M.A. Qureshi v. Union of
India, 2004 SCC OnLine Raj 257 reiterated the same. Relevant
paragraph is reproduced herein
(Uploaded below:
on 17/03/2026 at 10:18:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:36:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11907] (6 of 6) [CW-2404/2026]“20. It may be stated here that the High Court may refuse
to exercise discretion under Article 226 where the writ
petition raises highly disputed questions of facts as the
same cannot be gone into and decided in a summary
proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
because they require a detailed examination of the evidence
and the object of Article 226 is the enforcer not the
establishment of a right or title.”
8.1 Therefore, the present writ petition is further liable to be
dismissed on the ground that it involves several disputed
questions of fact relating to the claim and title of the petitioner, as
well as the alleged possession of the petitioner over the land in
question.
9. As an upshot of the discussions made hereinabove, the
present writ petition has been filed without the petitioner first
approaching the respondent-authorities by way of submitting any
representation, and without availing the statutory remedies
available under the revenue laws. The petition has also been filed
after an inordinate delay of about 23 years and further involves
disputed questions of fact.
10. In view of the aforesaid reasons and judicial
pronouncements, the present writ petition, bereft of merit, is
hereby, dismissed.
11. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, hereby
stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
30-yagya/-
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 10:18:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 17/03/2026 at 08:36:19 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)