Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Hameer Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:19065) on 21 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:19065]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21836/2025
1. Hameer Khan S/o Mahendra Khan, Aged About 55 Years,
Resident Of Village Dangri, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District
Jaisalmer (Raj.).
2. Kayam Khan S/o Lale Khan, Aged About 51 Years,
Resident Of Jajo Ki Dhani, Village Dangr, Tehsil Fatehgarh,
District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
3. Gulam Rasul S/o Jamme Khan, Aged About 52 Years,
Resident Of Village Dangri, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District
Jaisalmer (Raj.).
4. Ameen Khan S/o Lakhe Khan, Aged About 46 Years,
Resident Of Village Dangri, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District
Jaisalmer (Raj.).
5. Shakur Khan S/o Meere Khan, Aged About 47 Years,
Resident Of Village Dangri Lakshmansar, Tehsil Fatehgarh,
District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
6. Madhu Khan S/o Mohammad Khan, Aged About 33 Years,
Resident Of Village Dangri, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District
Jaisalmer (Raj.).
7. Mehardeen S/o Bachu Khan, Aged About 37 Years,
Resident Of Village Dangri, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District
Jaisalmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Revenue, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Jaisalmer.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Fatehgarh, Tehsil Fatehgarh,
District Jaisalmer.
4. Tehsildar, Fatehgarh, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer.
5. Gram Panchayat Dangri, Through Its Secretary Having Its
Office At Village Dangri, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District
Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Mathur
Mr. Harshwardhan Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal, GC
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 09:00:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19065] (2 of 10) [CW-21836/2025]
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
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 09:00:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19065] (3 of 10) [CW-21836/2025]
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(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 09:00:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19065] (4 of 10) [CW-21836/2025]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 impugned notice
dated 10.09.2025 issued under Section 91 of the
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 is decided by
the Teshildar Fatehgarh by a reasoned and speaking
order, the petitioners shall not be forcibly
dispossessed from the land in question.
5. It is further made clear that in case, an order
adverse to the interest of the petitioners is passed
by the Tehsildar Fatehgarh, then the petitioners
shall be at liberty to challenge the same before the
appropriate legal forum.”
5.1 Aggrieved by aforementioned order, petitioners preferred
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1388/2025 (Kame Khan &
Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), wherein vide order dated
08.10.2025, following directions were issued :
“3. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to
point out any specific reason why the Tehsildar,
Fatehgarh, cannot decide the matter in accordance
with the impugned order, except for harping upon
the point that an FIR lodged against certain parties,
belonging to a particular religion, may cause
prejudice to the appellants.
4. This Court finds that sufficient protection has
been granted by the learned Single Bench and
paragraphs 4 and 5 of the impugned order are
safeguarding the appellants’ interests, ensuring that
they are not forcibly dispossessed and that the
Tehsildar shall decide the issue within a period of
eight weeks finally. However, while disposing of the
present appeal, it is directed that if an adverse order
is passed against the appellants by the Tehsildar
Fatehgarh, the interim protection granted by the(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 09:00:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19065] (5 of 10) [CW-21836/2025]learned Single Bench shall remain in effect for an
additional 15 days to enable the appellants to
pursue appropriate legal recourse.”
5.2 In view of aforesaid directions, this Court finds that since
challenge to notice dated 10.09.2025 stands rejected by both the
Coordinate Bench as well as Hon’ble Division Bench, present writ
petition, insofar as it seeks to assail the said notice dated
10.09.2025, is clearly barred by the principles of res judicata.
Petitioner cannot be permitted to repeatedly challenge the same,
which was the subject matter of earlier writ petition.
6. Present writ petition, to the extent it challenges the notice
dated 10.09.2025 (Annexure-3), is accordingly dismissed.
7. So far as the order passed by Tehsildar, Fatehgarh, District
Jaisalmer, under Section 91 is concerned, learned counsel for
petitioners submits that the same has been passed in a pre-
determined manner on the very date of submission of the reply
filed on their behalf. It is further contended that various
averments and grounds raised in the reply, including the fact that
residential houses have already been constructed and petitioners
are residing over the land in question since long have not been
considered by learned authority.
7.1 However, this Court is of the considered view that an
efficacious statutory remedy of appeal is available to petitioners
and the grounds of challenge raised herein can appropriately be
urged before the learned Appellate Authority. Present writ petition
filed directly before this Court is, therefore, not maintainable,
7.2 So far as petitioner’s allegation regarding a pre-determined
approach of authorities is concerned, the same appears to be pre-
mature, as it is expected that learned Appellate Authority shall
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 09:00:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19065] (6 of 10) [CW-21836/2025]
decide the appeal on its own merits and strictly in accordance with
law.
8. This Court finds merit in objection raised by learned counsel
for respondents regarding the maintainability of present writ
petition against order passed under Section 91 of Act of 1956.
Reliance is placed on the judgment passed in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 2581/2026 (Magan Singh vs. State of
Rajasthan), wherein it has been held as follows:
“6. The scheme of Act of 1956, establishes a
comprehensive appellate and revisional hierarchy
under Sections 75, 76 and 84, thereby mandating
exhaustion of these forums before invoking writ
jurisdiction.
6.1 It is a well-settled principle of law that the
rule of alternative remedy operates as restraint
on the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution. Where a
statute provides specific, adequate, and
efficacious remedy by way of appeal, revision,
or other statutory recourse, the High Court
should not ordinarily entertain a writ petition
and must direct the petitioner to pursue the
statutory remedy first.
6.2 This Hon’ble High Court in Revataram & Ors. Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Anr.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.13572/15 held that order passed by Tehsildar
under Section 91 is appealable before the Collector
according to Section 75 of the Act, therefore,
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be
invoked. 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(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 09:00:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19065] (7 of 10) [CW-21836/2025]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.”
6.3 This Hon’ble High Court in Nanagram v State of
Rajasthan & Ors; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
20658/2018 dismissed the petition on the ground
that alternative remedy against an order passed
under Section 91 was not availed. The relevant
paragraphs are reproduced herein below:
“2. Under Provisions of the Act of 1956, the
petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy
of appeal before the Revenue Appellate
Authority against the order of eviction under
Section 91 of the Act of 1956.
3. In view of the availability of the
alternative remedy to the petitioner, the
present writ petition is dismissed.”
7. Thus, this Court declines to entertain present
writ petition, thereby preserving the legislative
intent and preventing premature judicial
intervention.”
8.1 In this context, judgment dated 17.04.2026 passed in
S.B.C.W.P. No. 8190/2026 (Lunaram vs State of Rajasthan)
also acquires significance. The relevant part of said judgment is
quoted below :-
“3. Indisputably, the impugned judgment dated
11.03.2026 has been passed by District Collector &
District Magistrate, Jaisalmer in exercise of powers under(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 09:00:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19065] (8 of 10) [CW-21836/2025]Section 75 of the Act of 1956 and this final judgment is
assailable through appeal under Section 76 of the Act of
1956. Hence, petitioner has statutory remedy of
appeal against the impugned judgment and is at
liberty to raise all his factual and legal grievances
there against before the appellate authority. This
Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction has
judicial restraints to exercise the powers of judicial
review, particularly, in respect of the impugned
judgment/order where the party has remedy of
statutory appeal thereagainst and more
particularly, when no exceptional reason exists to
bypass/circumvent the available statutory remedy
of appeal.
4. In case of Thansingh Nathmal v. Supdt. of Taxes [AIR
1964 SC 1419], the Hon’ble Supreme Court adverted to
the rule of self-imposed restraint that the writ petition
will not be entertained if an effective remedy is available
to the aggrieved person and observed as under:
“7……The High Court does not therefore act as a
court of appeal against the decision of a court or
tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by
assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench
upon an alternative remedy provided by statute
for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the
aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or
even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining
redress in the manner provided by a statute, the
High Court normally will not permit, by
entertaining a petition under Art. 226 of the
Constitution, the machinery created under the
statute to be by-passed, and will leave the party
applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so
set up.
Reiterating the above self-imposed restraint to exercise
powers of judicial review by the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, Hon’ble Supreme Court
in case of Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Assn. of
India [(2011) 14 SCC 337], in Para No.16, held and
observed as under:
“16. It can, thus, be said that this Court has
recognized some exceptions to the rule of
alternative remedy. However, the proposition laid
down in Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of
Taxes (supra) and other similar judgments that
the High Court will not entertain a petition under(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 09:00:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19065] (9 of 10) [CW-21836/2025]Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective
alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved
person or the statute under which the action
complained of has been taken itself contains a
mechanism for rederssal of grievance still holds
the field.”
5. In view of above, without entertaining the writ petition
on merits, the petitioner is relegated to avail the
statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned
judgment dated 11.03.2026.”
9. In view of the aforesaid, present writ petition against the
impugned order dated 06.10.2025 (Annexure-13) is not
maintainable on the ground of availability of an effective and
alternative statutory remedy prescribed under Act of 1956. The
petitioner is, however, at liberty to challenge the said order dated
06.10.2025 (Annexure-13) by way of filing appeal before the
competent Appellate Authority. It is expected that Appellate
Authority shall decide the said appeal strictly in accordance with
law.
9.1 This Court has also taken into account the directions
contained in order dated 24.09.2025 passed by learned
Coordinate Bench, wherein it was observed that in the event of
any adverse order, petitioners would be at liberty to challenge the
same before appropriate legal forum. No specific liberty was
granted to approach the writ Court against an order passed in
proceedings under Section 91 of the Act. The tenor of the said
directions indicates that petitioners were expected to avail the
remedy available under law, i.e., the statutory alternative remedy
provided under Act of 1956. On this count as well, present writ
petition is not liable to be entertained.
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 09:00:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19065] (10 of 10) [CW-21836/2025]
10. Looking to the fact that, in an earlier round of proceedings,
Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 08.10.2025 has granted
limited protection to the petitioners.
11. It is thus made clear that in case the petitioner prefers an
appeal challenging the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 within a
period of 10 days from today along with stay application, the
same shall be decided within a period of 30 days from the date of
filing of the said appeal. Till the date of decision upon said
application filed along with appeal, no coercive action shall be
taken against petitioners.
12. Thus, present writ petition is dismissed with aforesaid
directions / limited protections.
13. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
7-shashikant-vallabhi/-
(Uploaded on 24/04/2026 at 12:38:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/04/2026 at 09:00:55 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
