Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Alaj Vaya vs The State Of Rajasthan on 13 July, 2026
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (1 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13243/2026
CNR: RJHC010602112026
URN: CW / 24093U / 2026
Peer Mohammad Shah Jilani Dargah Samiti, Ramgarh Dist.
Jaisalmer Through Its Chairman Sh. Juma Khan S/o Burhan Khan
Aged About 58 Years R/o Chak 87 LLb (IGNP) Ramgarh Dist.
Jaisalmer Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
Deportment Of Home Govt. Of Raj. Secretariate Jaipur
2. District Collector, Jaisalmer
3. Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer
4. Deputy Commissioner, Colonization Dept. Jaisalmer
5. Tehsildar Colonization, Ramgarh No. 2 Dist. Jaisalmer
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13244/2026
CNR: RJHC010601442026
URN: CW / 24094U / 2026
1. Surab Khan S/o Shembhu Khan, Aged About 60 Years, R/
o Lalasar Tehsil Gadra Road Dist. Barmer
2. Ibrahim S/o Gulab Alias Megha, Aged About 55 Years, R/o
Lalasar Tehsil Gadra Road Dist. Barmer
3. Rahim S/o Ishaq, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Lalasar Tehsil
Gadra Road Dist. Barmer
4. Asman S/o Gulab, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Lalasar Tehsil
Gadra Road Dist. Barmer
5. Salim S/o Arbab, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Lalasar Tehsil
Gadra Road Dist. Barmer
6. Shekha S/o Adarim, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Lalasar
Tehsil Gadra Road Dist. Barmer
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Revenue
Dept. Govt. Secretariat Jaipur Raj.
2. The District Collector, Barmer Raj.
3. The Tehsildar, Gadra Road Dist. Barmer Raj.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (2 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13277/2026
CNR: RJHC010603742026
URN: CW / 24157U / 2026
1. Ahmed S/o Sakhi, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Nagodar Ki
Basti, Tehsil Chohtan, District Barmer.
2. Akbar S/o Sayar, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Sadul Ki
Gafan, Tehsil Chohtan, District Barmer.
3. Janu S/o Taju, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Jamgarh, Tehsil
Chohtan, District Barmer.
4. Aaib S/o Sindha, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Bhabhute Ki
Dhani, Tehsil Chohtan, District Barmer.
5. Kamardeen S/o Moosa, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Bhabhute Ki Dhani, Tehsil Chohtan, District Barmer.
6. Shera S/o Dilar, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Bhabhute Ki
Dhani, Tehsil Chohtan, District Barmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary (Revenue), Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Collector, Barmer.
4. Tehsildar, Chohtan, District Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13281/2026
CNR: RJHC010603802026
URN: CW / 24164U / 2026
Madarsa AI-E-Sunnat Faze-E-Asgariya, (Barelavi), SBS Nagar Ki
16 Rd, Revenue Gram Mandau, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer
Through Its Manager Sh. Sayre Khan S/o Samote Khan, Aged
About 68 Years, Resident Of Village Mandau, Mohangarh, District
Jaisalmer Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Jaisalmer.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Colonization Department,
Jaisalmer.
5. Tehsildar Colonization, Tehsil Mohangarh No.2, District
Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13282/2026
CNR: RJHC010603942026
URN: CW / 24165U / 2026
Jama Masjid, Sadrau (Barelavi),
(Uploaded Tehsil
on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 And
PM) District Jaisalmer
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (3 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
Through Its Manager Sh. Usman Khan S/o Imam Din, Aged
About 56 Years, Resident Of 17, Mukhaya Gram, Nehdai, District
Jaisalmer Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Jaisalmer.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Colonization Department,
Jaisalmer.
5. Tehsildar Colonization, Tehsil Mohangarh No.2, District
Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13284/2026
CNR: RJHC010603922026
URN: CW / 24168U / 2026
Fatima Masjid, Sayre Khan Ki Dhani, SBS Nagar Ki 16 Rd,
Revenue Gram Mandau, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer Through Its
Manager Sh. Sayre Khan S/o Samote Khan, Aged About 68
Years, Resident Of Village Mandau, Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Jaisalmer.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Colonization Department,
Jaisalmer.
5. Tehsildar Colonization, Tehsil Mohangarh No.2, District
Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13285/2026
CNR: RJHC010603832026
URN: CW / 24169U / 2026
Madarsa A1-E-Sunnat Faze-E-Lakiyari (Barelavi), Chak 9 SBS
Sadrau, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer Through Its Manager Sh.
Usman Khan S/o Imam Din, Aged Abut 56 Years, Resident Of 17,
Mukhaya Gram, Nehdai, District Jaisalmer Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Jaisalmer.
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (4 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
3. Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Colonization Department,
Jaisalmer.
5. Tehsildar Colonization, Tehsil Mohangarh No.2, District
Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13299/2026
CNR: RJHC010604022026
URN: CW / 24204U / 2026
Noorani Masjid, Boogal Ki Dhani, Sadrau Tehsil And District
Jaisalmer Through Its Manager Sh. Momad Khan S/o Boogal
Khan, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Boogal Ki Dhani,
Sadrau, Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretriate, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Jaisalmer.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Colonization Department,
Jaisalmer.
5. Tehsildar Colonization, Tehsil Mohangarh No. 2, District
Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13308/2026
CNR: RJHC010605832026
URN: CW / 24220U / 2026
Jamiah Mahmoodiyah Detani Sansthan, Gadra Road, District
Barmer Through Its President Sh. Jamaluddin S/o Mohammed
Salar, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Ganganiyon Ka Par,
Abhey Ka Par, District Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariate, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Barmer.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Barmer.
4. Tehsildar, Gadra Road, District Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13311/2026
CNR: RJHC010605022026
URN: CW / 24226U / 2026
1. Jaman Shah S/o Gulshah, Aged About 51 Years, Presently
Secretary, Anwar - E- Hasnain, Shikshak Sansthan
Tamachi Ki Gafan, R/o Tamachi Ki Gafan, Tehsil- Chohtan,
District- Barmer.
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (5 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
2. Ali Sher S/o Khanu, Aged About 40 Years, Presently
Secretary, Anwar - E- Hasnain, Shikshak Sansthan
Tamachi Ki Gafan, R/o Tamachi Ki Gafan, Tehsil- Chohtan,
District- Barmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary (Revenue), Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Collector, Barmer.
4. Tehsildar, Chohtan, District- Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13340/2026
CNR: RJHC010607202026
URN: CW / 24276U / 2026
Ameen Khan S/o Gaji Khan, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village
And Post Office Bhagu Ka Gaon, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector,
Jaisalmer.
2. Commissioner, Colonisation, Bikaner.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation, Jaisalmer.
4. Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Mohangarh (B),
Jaisalmer.
5. Tehsildar Colonisation, Tehsil Mohangarh (Ii), Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13352/2026
CNR: RJHC010607842026
URN: CW / 24299U / 2026
Masjid Usmaniya Vikas Samiti, Chak 26 K L D, Bhurasar, District
Bikaner (Raj.) Through Its Care Taker Sh. Naju Khan S/o
Molabax, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Bhurasar, District
Bikaner (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Bikaner.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Bikaner.
4. Administrator, Gram Panchayat, Bhurasar, Panchayat
Samiti Bajju, District Bikaner.
5. Tehsildar, Bajju Khalsa, District Bikaner.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (6 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13354/2026
CNR: RJHC010607752026
URN: CW / 24301U / 2026
Islamu Deen S/o Khan Mohammad, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident Of Purana Minawas, Shekhon Ka Tala, Panche Ka Talab,
District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Jaisalmer.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer.
4. Tehsildar, IGNP, Nachana No. 2, Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13363/2026
CNR: RJHC010606062026
URN: CW / 24310U / 2026
Madarsa Ahle Sunnat Goshiya, Hakim Ki Dhani, 6-9 Chak Aabadi
Panche Ka Tala, Nachana, Pokaran, District Jaisalmer Through Its
Manager Sh. Hakim Khan S/o Deenu Khan, Aged About 61 Years,
Resident Of Panche Ka Tala, Pokaran, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Jaisalmer.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer.
4. Tehsildar, IGNP, Nachana-2, District Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13472/2026
CNR: RJHC010612762026
URN: CW / 24495U / 2026
Madarsa Ahle Sunnat Feze Roze Ki Dhani, Laale Ki Basti Rahu Ka
Par, Sam Jaisalmer Through Its President Sh. Makal Khan S/o
Aachar Khan, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Balidad Ki Basti
Dhanana Loonar, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariate, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Jaisalmer
3. Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer
4. Deputy Commissioner, Colonization Department,
Jaisalmer.
5. Tehsildar Colonization, TehsilatJaisalmer,
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 03:25:03 PM) District Jaisalmer.
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (7 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13617/2026
CNR: RJHC010617952026
URN: CW / 24775U / 2026
Madarsa Ahle Sunnat Fez Gosul Azam, Hamiron Ki Basti Through
Its Secretary Sh. Aachar Khan S/o Gala Khan, Aged About 59
Years, Resident Of Hamira Ki Basti, Sam District Jaisalmer Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Jaisalmer.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Colonization Department,
Jaisalmer.
5. Tehsildar Colonization, Tehsil Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13637/2026
CNR: RJHC010618382026
URN: CW / 24807U / 2026
Dildar Khan S/o Ganni Khan, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of
Gomat, Pokaran Jaisalmer Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Jaisalmer.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Colonization Department,
Jaisalmer.
5. Tehsildar Colonization, Mohangarh No.1, District Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13858/2026
CNR: RJHC010634052026
URN: CW / 25225U / 2026
Madarsa Ahle Sunnat Gulzar Rashidi, Rahu Ka Par Through Its
Imam Sh. Amir Khan S/o Parta Khan, Aged About 33 Years,
Resident Of Rahu Ka Par, Sam District Jaisalmer Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Home Secretary, Ministry Of
Home Affairs, Government Of India, North Block, Central
Secretariat, New Delhi, 110001.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (8 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
3. District Collector, Jaisalmer Raj.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Colonization Department,
Jaisalmer.
5. Tehsildar Colonization, Tehsil Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13614/2026
CNR: RJHC010617782026
URN: CW / 24749U / 2026
Madarsa Sibghtul Islam Faize Sayyed Peer Peeran Ukaralapar,
Sam, Jaisalmer Through President Sumar Khan S/o Umar
Khan, Age 38 Years, R/o Ukaralapar, Sam, Jaisalmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary,
Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary (Colonization), Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Collector, Jaisalmer.
4. Tehsildar (Colonization), Jaisalmer, District- Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13631/2026
CNR: RJHC010620532026
URN: CW / 24798U / 2026
Madarsa Ehle Sunnat Faize Gosul Haque Sakhar Nooh,
Changaniyon Ki Basti, Sam, Jaisalmer Through Secretary Male
Khan S/o Jusab Khan, Age 38 Years, R/o Changaniyon Ki Basti,
Sam, Jaisalmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary,
Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary (Colonization), Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Collector, Jaisalmer.
4. Tehsildar (Colonization), Jaisalmer, District- Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13633/2026
CNR: RJHC010620602026
URN: CW / 24801U / 2026
Madarsa Ahle Sunnat Faize Roje Dhani, Gajuon Ki Basti, Sam,
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (9 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
Jaisalmer Through Secretary Piyare Khan S/o Jam Khan, Age
56 Years, R/o Gajuon Ki Basti, Sam, Jaisalmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary,
Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary (Colonization), Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Collector, Jaisalmer.
4. Tehsildar (Colonization), Jaisalmer, District- Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13785/2026
CNR: RJHC010613582026
URN: CW / 25113U / 2026
Kamil Khan S/o Jiyan Khan, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
Mohammad Nagar Bharewala Dist. Jaisalmer Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
Dept. Of Home Govt. Of Raj. Secretariate Jaipur
2. District Collector, Jaisalmer
3. Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer
4. Tehsildar, IGNP, Nachana No. 1 Jaisalmer
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13812/2026
CNR: RJHC010613622026
URN: CW / 25160U / 2026
Alaj Vaya S/o Ibrahim Khan, Aged About 40 Years, Resident
Of Bharewala, District Jaisalmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through It Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Jaisalmer
3. Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer
4. Tehsildar, IGNP, Nachana No.1 District Jaisalmer
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (10 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13900/2026
CNR: RJHC010636652026
URN: CW / 25329U / 2026
Hanif Khan S/o Gani Khan, Aged About 62 Years, Resident
Of Raichandwala, Tawriwala, District Barmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal
Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariate, Jaipur
2. District Collector, Jaisalmer
3. Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer.
4. Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat
Jaluwala, District Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14231/2026
CNR: RJHC010655502026
URN: CW / 25976U / 2026
Madarsa Kadarya Faije Rashdiya Shikshan Sansthan, Sam,
District Jaisalmer, Through Its Secretary Sh. Hazi Fatan
Khan S/o Hazi Peeru Khan, Aged About 64 Years, Resident
Of Rojaniyon Ki Basti, Tehsil Sam, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal
Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Jaisalmer.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer.
4. Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat Sam,
Panchayat Samiti Sam, District Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Tahir Hakim
Mr. Harish Kumar Purohit
Mr. Ikbal Khan
Mr. Shahbaz Khan
Mr. Mohd. Riyaz
Mr. Abdul Kadir
Mr. C.S. Kotwani and
Mr. Chinmoy Shekhar Kotwani
Mr. Abhijeet Singh Charan
Mr. A.R. Beniwal
Mr. M.A. Siddiqui with
Mr. Naved Khan Sindi
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (11 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
Mr. Usman Ghani
Mr. M.D. Riyaz
Mr. C.M. Sharma
Mr. Gagan Khan Mehar
Mr. Harish Kumar Purohit
Mr. Iqbal Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General
assisted by Mr. Anirudh Singh
Shekhawat
Mr. Bharat Vyas, ASG, through VC
assisted by Mr. Vaibhav Bhansali and
Ms. Neeti Jain Bhandari
Mr. Manish Patel
Mr. B.L.Bhati, AAG assisted by
Mr. Sandeep Soni, AAAG
Mr. Deepak Chandak, AAAG
Mr. Sukhdev Sharma, AGC
Ms. Sulochana Bishnoi
Mr. Shyam Paliwal, DSG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
REPORTABLE:
1. Arguments Concluded on: 07.07.2026
2. Judgment Reserved on: 07.07.2026
08.07.2026
09.07.2026
3. Full Judgment/Operative Part Pronounced: Full Judgment
4. Pronounced on: 13.07.2026
1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the ambit of the
controversy, albeit not exhaustively circumscribed, is broadly and
predominantly delineated by the challenge laid to the correctness
and/or validity of the eviction/vacation/ and show-cause notices
(hereinafter referred to as "notices") issued by the respondents to
the petitioners, qua their respective properties and constructions
situated within a radius of approximately 50 kilometers from the
Indo-Pakistan border. The impugned actions as alleged by the
petitioners are purportedly undertaken under diverse statutory
regimes, inter alia, (Uploaded
the Rajasthan Colonization
on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM) Act, 1954, the
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (12 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, as well as the relevant rules
governing Gram Panchayats. In view of the fact that the instant
writ petitions necessitate adjudication upon common and
overlapping questions of law, and with the consent of learned
counsel appearing for all contesting parties, S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 13243/2026, titled Peer Mohammad Shah Jilani
Dargah v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., is hereby treated as the
lead matter. It is, however, cautiously clarified that any
dissimilarities or variances in the present batch of petitions are
confined strictly to the individual factual matrices and shall not
impinge upon, nor bear relevance to, the uniform questions of law
that fall for determination before this Court; and that the instant
judgment shall be applicable on mutatis mutandis basis on all the
connected petitions.
2. The overarching factual matrix, enveloping the lis to be
determined by this Court pertains to the issuance of show-cause
notices under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,
1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956"), more
particularly under Section 90, 91A thereof, as well as under the
Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act of 1954") more particularly under Section 20, and other
enabling provisions of the relevant statutory framework. By way of
the impugned notices, it has been alleged that the petitioners and
similarly situated persons, who are operating Madrasas,
Masjids/Mosques, and Dargahs, are conducting such activities,
have erected permanent constructions, without any valid
permission or authorization, and are in unauthorized occupation of
Government land/agricultural land, without requisite sanction,
approval, or lawful conversion, as per the legal framework. It is
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (13 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
further alleged by the respondents that the said
structures/properties are located within a range of 0-50
kilometers from the international border (Indo-Pak Border), falling
within a notified or prohibited zone, and have been established
without due permission. The respondents have primarily
contended that on the basis of available records, documentary
material, complaints, and inputs purportedly received through
intelligence sources, the existence and operation of such
structures may pose a threat to national security. In this
backdrop, the respondents have proceeded to issue notices
seeking vacation, resumption of possession, and consequential
takeover of the subject properties.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners along with other counsel, advanced the ad infra
preliminary submissions that:
3.1 That the petitioners represent the Samiti comprising
the office bearers entrusted with the administration and
management of the institution in question;
3.2 That the petitioner, in the lead matter, is serving as the
Chairman/office bearer of Peer Mohammad Shah Jeelani Dargah,
situated in District Jaisalmer.
3.3 That the said Dargah has been in existence since
several decades and holds significant religious and cultural
importance, attracting devotees cutting across all communities.
3.4 That a duly constituted Society has been established for
the purposes of managing and administering the affairs of the
Dargah. Under the aegis of the said Society, two Urs festivals are
organized annually, which witness substantial public participation,
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (14 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
and for which requisite permissions have consistently been
granted by the District Administration.
3.5 That the Dargah is situated adjacent to a land forming
part of a Kabristan, and in this regard, the concerned Gram
Panchayat, vide resolution dated 30.10.2021, had proposed
allotment of three bighas of land in favour of the Dargah, which
proposal, however, remains pending consideration till date.
4. It was further contended that on 14.06.2026, a declaration
was made by the Hon'ble Home Minister, Government of India, to
the effect that structures falling within a radius of 15 kilometers,
which was subsequently extended to 50 kilometers from the
international borders of Indo-Pak, would be subject to
vacation/eviction/demolition on grounds of national security, as
even in past decade the said area has been an area of crucial and
sensitive importance. According to learned senior counsel, the
impugned notices have been issued in the backdrop of the said
declaration, ostensibly invoking the provisions of the Act of 1956,
and the Act of 1954. It was further submitted that several
structures situated within the 0-50 kilometer belt have already
been demolished, and numerous notices have been issued in
furtherance thereof, thus, leaving the petitioners with an
apprehension that their premises might also be demolished.
5. Assailing the action of the respondents, learned Senior
Counsel had vehemently contended that the impugned exercise is
vitiated by arbitrariness and is in flagrant disregard of the settled
position of law, as the respondents have acted in a predetermined
and autocratic manner with the sole objective of effecting
demolition of the properties/construction of the petitioners, while
bypassing the binding directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (15 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
Court in Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of
Structures, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 321. It was
submitted that neither adequate show-cause notices have been
served, nor has any meaningful opportunity of personal hearing
been afforded to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the
statutory mandate under the Act of 1956, particularly Section 90A
thereof, has not been adhered to in its true letter and spirit. It was
contended that the legislative intent underlying Section 90A is not
merely regulatory but also facilitative, inasmuch as it enables
regularization of land use, subject to satisfaction of statutory
conditions. The provision vests the competent authority with
discretion to examine the nature of occupation, the character of
land, and surrounding circumstances, and to pass appropriate
orders either permitting conversion or otherwise, in accordance
with law.
6. It was further urged that the drastic and coercive measures
of eviction, demolition, or dispossession cannot be resorted to as a
matter of first instance, in derogation of the statutory framework,
particularly when the statute itself envisages a curative and
regularizing mechanism. The omission to consider the applicability
of Section 90A and the failure to afford the petitioners an
opportunity to avail the benefit thereof renders the impugned
action arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of the principles of
natural justice. Thus, the impugned proceedings stand vitiated for
non-compliance with the statutory scheme under Section 90A,
which mandates a structured, fair, and reasoned exercise of power
before any adverse action affecting civil rights in immovable
property is undertaken.
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (16 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners had
further submitted that the replies filed by the Union of India as
well as the State Government are ambiguous, self-contradictory,
and lacking in material particulars. It was contended that the plea
of availability of an alternate remedy, as canvassed by the learned
Advocate General and the learned Additional Solicitor General, is
illusory and untenable in the facts of the present case; and that
service of notices by way of chaspa, sans resorting to registered
post or any other legally recognized mode, is per se illegal and
contrary to due process. Further, the grant of unreasonably short
timelines for compliance, in the given factual matrix, is also
assailed as arbitrary and violative of principles of fairness. It was
further contended that the stance adopted by the respondents in
the show-cause notices, vis-a-vis those taken in the replies filed
before this Court, particularly on the aspect of national security,
are mutually inconsistent, thereby rendering the entire action
suspect and unsustainable.
8. Learned senior counsel further contended that where
proceedings are initiated under the Act of 1956 and the Act of
1954, the authorities are duty-bound to adhere to the prescribed
statutory procedure and the principles of natural justice, which
mandate issuance of proper notice, grant of reasonable
opportunity, and passing of reasoned orders, which stand
conspicuously absent in the present case. Learned senior counsel
while fairly conceding that in matters involving a question of
national security, the principles of natural justice may not be
applied in their strictest amplitude, submitted that even in such
cases, the authorities must possess a 'reason to believe' founded
upon cogent material, including credible evidence, documents, and
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (17 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
intelligence inputs, before initiating coercive measures against any
citizen. It is urged that in the absence of such foundational
material, drastic actions such as eviction, demolition, or takeover
of property cannot be sustained in law. It was further submitted
that the present case is not an isolated instance, and as per the
information available to the petitioners, show-cause notices have
been issued in respect of approximately 180 properties within the
concerned belt.
9. In support of the contentions made insofar, learned counsel
had placed reliance upon the dictum enunciated in Union of
India v. State of Gujarat (SLP No. 8519/2006), Abdul
Khalek & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors. : 2026 INSC 140, In
Re: Manoj Tibrewal Akash : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3210, and
Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures :
(2025) 5 SCC 1, wherein comprehensive directions have been
issued governing demolition of structures. It was submitted that
the Apex Court has, inter alia, mandated that no demolition shall
be undertaken without issuance of prior show-cause notice, grant
of a minimum period of fifteen days (or more) to respond,
affording an opportunity of hearing, conducting proper survey and
demarcation, recording reasons, videographing the process, and
providing adequate time to the affected parties to avail legal
remedies. Learned Senior Counsel had stoutly contended that,
despite the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements, no policy has
been framed by the respondents till date, nor have the binding
guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court been adhered
to. It was further contended that a large number of notices have
been issued within a compressed time frame in a mechanical and
premeditated manner, thereby lending credence to the petitioners'
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (18 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
grievance that the entire exercise is arbitrary and actuated by a
predetermined objective.
10. Other learned counsel appearing in connected matters have
adopted and endorsed the submissions advanced by the learned
Senior Counsel, reiterating that the impugned action suffers from
procedural impropriety, non-application of mind, and violation of
settled legal principles.
11. Per contra, learned Advocate General, learned Additional
Solicitor General, and learned Additional Advocate General,
appearing for the respondents, have vehemently raised a
preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present batch
of writ petitions. It was contended that the issues sought to be
agitated namely, the title of the subject properties, the very
existence and status of the Dargah, Mosque, and Madrasa, as well
as the absence of requisite permissions and supporting
documentation, constitute seriously disputed questions of fact,
which are not amenable to adjudication in writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted
that the petitioners lack locus standi to maintain the present
proceedings, inasmuch as they have failed to establish their
identity, authority, or legal capacity to represent the concerned
institutions; and in the absence of any valid authorization,
resolutions of the alleged committees or societies, or documentary
substantiation, the petitions are stated to be inherently defective
and liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents have next submitted
that the impugned notices have been issued under the Act of
1954, and the Ac of 1956, both of which provide a complete and
efficacious statutory mechanism for redressal of grievances. It was
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (19 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
contended that the statutory scheme envisages a hierarchy of
remedies, whereby the aggrieved party may approach the
competent authority, and thereafter avail appellate remedies
before the Revenue Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as
'RAA'), with a further remedy before the Board of Revenue. Thus,
in view of the availability of such alternate remedies, the present
writ petitions are not maintainable.
13. It was further contended that it is an admitted position that
show-cause notices were duly issued to the petitioners and an
opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to them; however,
the petitioners failed to avail the same. Likewise, the petitioners
submitted that they are apprehending demolishing proceedings,
however, have failed to bring on record any such authentic data. It
was contended that the petitioners have not disclosed their
identity or ownership/management credentials in most of the
petitions, and in the absence of any responsible or authorized
person available at the site to receive notices, the authorities were
constrained to resort to service by way of chaspa, which is a
recognized mode of substituted service under the circumstances.
14. Further, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents have placed reliance upon the provisions of the
Rajasthan Religious Buildings and Places Act, 1954 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Religious Places Act'), particularly Sections 5
and 6 thereof, to contend that prior permission of the District
Collector is a mandatory prerequisite for establishment of any
religious structure. However, in the present cases, no such
permission has been obtained by the petitioners. Additionally,
reliance was placed upon Section 139 of the Border Security Force
Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1968') and the
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (20 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
notification issued in the year 2021, whereby specific powers and
duties have been conferred upon the Border Security Force (BSF)
with respect to areas falling within 0-50 kilometers from the Line
of Control/International Border.
15. Learned counsel had emphatically submitted that the issue of
national security is of paramount importance and must be
approached with utmost sensitivity and circumspection, and thus,
the principles of natural justice are not inflexible and may be
suitably moulded in exigent circumstances, particularly where
larger public interest and national security are at stake. Moreover,
the respondents herein being instrumentalities of a welfare State,
are under a constitutional obligation to safeguard the interests of
the citizenry at large.
16. It was apprised to the Court that in the context of five border
States, including Rajasthan, policy decisions have been taken on
the basis of intelligence inputs, documentary material, and past
incidents, including those relating to smuggling of contraband,
arms and cross-border threats; thus, in light of the prevailing
sensitive situation and disturbances with the neighbouring
country, preventive and precautionary measures are imperative to
ensure public safety. It was also submitted that the decisions with
respect to structures situated in the border belt are not based on
any rigid or straightjacket formula, but are founded upon material
available on record and are taken on a case-to-case basis.
Further, it was argued that even in such sensitive matters, show-
cause notices have been issued and opportunities of hearing have
been afforded to the petitioners to reflect and substantiate their
bona fides, lawful possession, and construction on such land,
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (21 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
which is apparently a barren-scarcely populated land; however,
the petitioners have not cooperated with the process.
17. In support of the submissions made insofar, reliance was
placed upon the ratio enunciated in (2023) 13 SCC 401 :
Madhaymam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India and ors. to
contend that in matters involving national security, there may be
legitimate grounds for non-disclosure of certain information. While
fairly conceding that complete abrogation of the principles of
natural justice is impermissible, it was submitted that where
sufficient material exists to form an opinion that disclosure would
be prejudicial to national security, the application of such
principles may be curtailed or suitably modified from the
standpoint of a reasonable and prudent person; and that in the
present matters, sufficient material existed prior to issuance of the
notices.
18. Auxiliary, distinguishing the judgments relied upon by the
petitioners qua demolition of religious structures, learned counsel
has submitted that the same are inapplicable to the facts of the
present case for the reasons noted hereinbelow:
18.1 That the present matters pertain to unauthorized
constructions raised in violation of the Act of 1954, the Act of
1956, and other local laws, in respect whereof show-cause notices
have been issued strictly in accordance with statutory provisions;
18.2 That no permission, as mandated under the Religious
Buildings Act, has been obtained for establishment of the subject
structures;
18.3 That the actions impugned herein are informed by
considerations of national security, based on credible information
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (22 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
and policy decisions, in respect whereof the petitioners have failed
to extend cooperation.
19. In summation, it was submitted that in matters involving
disputed questions of fact, the respondents have taken
appropriate action in accordance with law, and the petitioners
have an adequate and efficacious alternate remedy available to
them; and that due compliance with the principles of natural
justice has been ensured, subject to necessary modifications
warranted by considerations of national security, wherever there
exists a reason to believe based on material on record.
20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned
counsel for the respondents have prayed that the present writ
petitions, being devoid of merit and not maintainable, deserve to
be dismissed.
DISCUSSION, FINDINGS AND DIRECTIONS:
21. Upon according solicitous consideration to the rival
contentions advanced by the learned counsel qua the substantive
particulars delineated supra, and upon a meticulous scrutiny of the
documentary evidence in conjunction with the governing legal
tenets, and the judgments cited at the Bar, this court proceedeth
to record its opinion, noteworthy record and adjudicatory
determinations, ad-seriatim:
The line between safety and vulnerability is often a
thin, trembling cord. When our borders become
heavy with the breath of unease, the law cannot
merely be a cold document, it must become the
beating heart of our protection.
Sovereignty is not an abstraction; it is the collec-
tive, aching desire to keep our home whole, de-
fended not by silence, but by a vigilant, sleepless
love for the soil we walk upon.
We must understand that even
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 stones
at 03:25:03 PM) placed in
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (23 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
the name of faith cannot hold sacred ground. Our
land is a living testament to a shared promise, a
Republic's covenant that demands, prioritizing the
safety of the many over the quiet demands of the
few.
True security is not a cage for the spirit; it is the
soft, sturdy wall that allows freedom to sleep
soundly at night. It is the embrace that keeps our
liberty from being torn away by the winds of chaos.
When the voice of our nation calls out, urgent, and
true we must answer with a unified strength, un-
derstanding that the deepest devotion we can offer
to our state, is commitment, and the sense of se-
curity, that our land shall always remain sans any
bloodshed.
22. At the outset, it is observed that the petitioners have directly
invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. Upon a careful scrutiny of the
pleadings, this Court finds that the petitions suffer from inherent
deficiencies, particularly with regard to locus standi, identity of the
petitioners, and absence of cogent material establishing their
nexus with the concerned Masjid, Madrasa, or Dargah, as no
credible documents, resolutions, or authorizations from any legally
recognized body or society have been placed on record, in most of
the petitions.
23. Further, it stands admitted in several petitions that no
permission, as mandatorily required under Section 5 and 6 of the
Religious Buildings Act, was ever obtained for establishment of the
religious structures, and no application seeking such permission
was ever moved before the appropriate authority i.e. Collector.
Consequently, the structures in question prima facie fall within the
category of unauthorized and unpermitted constructions. For the
sake of handiness the relevant provisions are reproduced
hereinbelow:
"5. Restrictions on use of public places for
religious purposes - (1) No person shall use
any public(Uploaded
place-on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (24 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
(a) as a permanent religious place, or
(b) save with the previous written permission of
the Collector obtained in the prescribed manner,
as a temporary religious place.
(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to
cremation grounds and burial places or to the
holding of functions or the taking out of
processions, in connection with deaths or
marriages or to other purely social and secular
functions or to religious processions.
6. Constructions etc. of public religious
buildings - (1) No person shall, without first
obtaining the written permission of the Collector-
(a) construct any public religious building; or
(b) convert any private or public building or place
into a public religious building.
Explanation. - The temporary use of a building or
place for religious purposes on occasions such as
Holi, Moharram and the like shall not be deemed
to be the conversion thereof into a public religious
building.
(2) A person desirous of obtaining permission for
any of the purposes mentioned in sub-section (1)
shall first obtain permission from any local
authority or officer having jurisdiction over the
area where the building or place in question lies
and thereafter such person shall apply to the
Collector for the
requisite permission in the prescribed manner."
(Emphasis supplied)
24. From the show-cause notices placed on record
(Annexed in the petitions), issued under the Act of 1956
(particularly Sections 90-A and 91) and the Act of 1954 (Sections
14, 15, and 22), it is evident that issues pertaining to title,
ownership, possession, and land use remain seriously disputed. In
absence of documentary substantiation, these are pure questions
of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. It is also
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (25 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
noteworthy that the statutory framework provides a complete
mechanism, including adjudication by the competent authority,
followed by appellate remedies before the Revenue Appellate
Authority and thereafter the Board of Revenue.
25. In the lead matter, there is a categorical admission on
the part of the petitioners that show-cause notices were issued
and an opportunity of personal hearing was afforded/ called for;
thus, the notices, on a plain reading, do not direct demolition;
rather, they merely call upon the petitioners to appear, explain
their position, and place material on record. They further stipulate
that in the event of non-appearance, ex parte proceedings may be
initiated, and despite such opportunity, the petitioners have
consciously chosen not to participate in the proceedings before the
competent authority and have instead rushed to this Court.
Consequentially, it is significant that the apprehension of imminent
demolition, as projected by the petitioners, is not substantiated by
any material on record. Significantly, till date, no coercive action
has been taken pursuant to the issuance of the show-cause
notices, and the plea of threat perception is thus found to be
misconceived and speculative. It is also an admitted position that
the subject properties are situated within a belt of 0-50 kilometers
from the international Indo-Pak border/Line of Control, an area
which is undisputedly sensitive and strategically significant; and
that the locations in question are remote, sparsely populated, and
do not form part of any densely inhabited urban cluster, thereby
heightening the need for vigilance and regulatory oversight. For
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (26 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
the sake of reference a few of the notices issued under various
statutory guidelines, are reproduced hereinbelow:
"In SBCWP No. 13299/2026 Notice issued under Section 22
and 23/24 of Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954
jktLFkku mifuos'ku vf/kfu;e] 1954 dh /kkjk 22 o lifBr /kkjk 23 o
24 ds v/khu uksfVl
U;k;ky; mifuos'ku rglhynkj eksgux< ua- 2 ftyk tSlyesj
¼jktLFkku½
izdj.k la- & 118@26 o"kZ 2026&27 laor & 2083
jktLFkku ljdkj cuke %& izca/kd uwjkuh efLtn desBh] cwxy dh <k.kh
lnjkÅ rg- o ftyk tSlyesj
;r% vkius mifuos'ku rglhy eksgux<+ ua- 02 ds xzke cwxy dh
<k.kh lnjkÅ ds [kljk uEcj 862 dh vukf/kÑr ljdkjh Hkwfe tks eki
ls 2500 oxZ fQV gS] ij vfrpkj djds voS| efLtn dk fuekZ.k fd;k
gSA mDr Hkwfe izfrcaf/kr Fkkuk {ks= esa fLFkr gS rFkk fuekZ.k ds le; ftyk
iz'kklu ,oa bl foHkkx ls dksbZ vuqefr ugha yh xbZ gSA Hkkjr ikd lhek
ls 0 ls 50 fdyksehVj dh nwjh esa fLFkr gSA
vr% tfj, uksfVl lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd vki fnukad 24-06-
2026 ls iwoZ mDr Hkwfe dks [kkyh dj nsa vFkok Lo;a ;k IyhMj }kjk
fnukad 24-06-2026 dks 10-00 cts iwokZà U;k;ky; mifuos'ku rglhynkj
eksgux<+ ua- 2 esa gkftj gksosaA rFkk gsrqd nf'kZr djsa fd vkidks ogka ls
csn[ky D;ksa u dj fn;k tk;saA vkils ;g gsrqd nf'kZr djus dh Hkh
vis{kk dh tkrh gSa fd mDr Hkwfe ij mDr Ñf"k o"kZ ds nkSjku vfrpkj
djus ds fy, vki ij D;ks u 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir dh tkosaA ,oa D;ks u
vfrØe.k ds laca/k esa jktLFkku mifuos'ku vf/kfu;e 1954 dh /kkjk
22 ,oa jktLFkku Hkw jktLo ¼vfrØef.k;ksa ds fu"dklu½ fu;e 1975 ,oa
vU; fu;eksa ds vUrZxr fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tkosaA
;g Hkh /;ku j[ksa fd mDr rkjh[k] le; rFkk LFkku ij gkftj
gksus esa vkids vlQy jgus ij mDr ekeyk vkidh xSjgktjh esa
fofuf'pr fd;k tkosxkA
;g uksfVl vkt fnukad 09-06-2026 dks esjs gLrk{kj vkSj
U;k;ky; dh eqnzk ls tkjh fd;k x;kA
rglhynkj
mifuos'ku rglhy
eksgux< ua-2
In SBCWP NO. 13243/2026 (Notice issued under Section
22 of Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954):
jktLFkku mifuos'ku vf/kfu;e] 1954 dh /kkjk 22 ds v/khu uksfVl
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (27 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
U;k;ky; rglhynkj jkex<+&2 ftyk tSlyesj izdh.kZ ekeyk la-
02@ lu~ 2026 jkT; ljdkj cuke v/;{k ihj eksgEen ftykuh dh
njxkg iq= 'kjhQ pd&87 LLB ¼IGNP½ fuoklh -------
vr% vkius pd&87 LLB ¼IGNP½ Ø-la- 193@57] 59 rglhy ds
xzke pd&87 LLB ¼IGNP½ Ø-la- 193@57] 59 fdyk 22 to 27, 29 to -------
dh vukf/kÑr ljdkjh Hkwfe tks vki ls vksnj?kkV] 1 cMk gkWy] 2 dejs
/keZ'kkyk rkjcanh yxkouk] 5 'kkSpky; fufeZr
blds }kjk vkidks uksfVl fn;k tkrk gS fd vki fnukad 27-06-
2026 ls iwoZ [kuu Hkwfe dks [kkyh dj nsa vFkok Lo;a ;k OyhMj }kjk
fnukad 23-06-26 dks 12 PM cts iwokZâ@vijkâ gkftj gksaosA rFkk ;g
gsrqd nf'kZr djsafd vkidks ogka ls csn[ky D;ksa u dj fn;k tkosA
vkils ;g gsrqd nf'kZr djus dh Hkh vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd mDr Hkwfe
ij mDr Ñf"k o"kZ ds nkSjku vfrpkj djus ds fy, vki ij okf"kZd
yxku ;k fu/kkZj.k ds 50 eq[ks rd 'kkfLr o"kksZ u vf/kjksfir dh tkosA
;g vksj /;ku esa j[k fd vkius blh Hkwfe ij Ñf"k o"kZ esa Hkh
vfrpkj fd;k FkkA ;g uksfVl vkidks o"kZ esa i'pkr~orhZ vfrpkj djus
dh ckcr fn;k tk jgk gSA vkils ;g gsrqd nf'kZr djus dh vkidks
rhu ekg dh vof/k ds fy, D;ksa ugha flfoy djkoj lqiqnZ dj fn;k
tk; rFkk okf"kZd yxku ;k fu/kkZj.k tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks ds 50 xq.kk rd
dh 'kkfLr dk laokn djus dh vis{kk dh tkrh gSA
;g Hkh /;ku j[ksa fd mDr rkjh[k] le; rFkk cpko ij gkftj
gksus esa vkids vlQy jgus ij mDr ekeyk vkidh xSjgktjh esa
fofu'fpr fd;k tkosxkA
vkt fnukad 12-06-26 dks esjs gLrk{kj vkSj U;k;ky; dh eqnzk ls
fd;k x;kA
In SBCWP NO. 13308/2026 (Notice issued under Section
90A of the Land Revenue Act, 1956):-
न्यायालय तहसीलदार/ नायब तहसीलदार गडरारोड़, जिला बाड़मेर
प्रकरण संख्या :-26/2026
नोटिस
(राजस्थान भू -राजस्व अधिनियम, 1956 की धारा 90 ए के अंतर्गत)
प्रति,
श्री / श्रीमति जमालुदीन पुत्र सालार, जाति-मुसलमान, नि० दे ताणी
वगैरा (संलग्न जमाबंदी अनुसार) तह० गडरारोड
जहां यह प्रतिवे दित किया गया है कि ग्राम दे ताणी, तहसील गडरारोड़
स्थित खसरा नम्बर 2482 रकबा 3.2941 है क्टेयर अतिकमित रकबा
12000 वर्गफीट भूमि, जो आपके खातेदारी अधिकार में दर्ज है , पर एक
मस्जिद / मदरसा निर्मित या सापित पाई गई है ।
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (28 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
हल्का पटवारी राजासर द्वारा प्रस्तुत निरीक्षण प्रतिवेदन एवं उपलब्ध
अभिलेखों के अवलोकन में प्रथम दृष्टया यह प्रतीत होता है कि उक्त भूमि का
उपयोग मूल प्रयोजन से भिन्न रूप में किया जा रहा है तथा इस संबंध में सक्षम
प्राधिकारी की स्वीकृति/अनुमति अभिलेख पर उपलब्ध नही ं है ।
अतः आपको यह अवसर प्रदान किया जाता है कि दिनां क 23-6-26
को स्वयं अथवा अपने अधिकृत प्रतिनिधि के माध्यम से उपस्थित होकर
अपना पक्ष प्रस्तुत करें तथा संबंधित दस्तावे ज / अनुमतियां प्रस्तुत करें ।
यदि निर्धारित अवधि मे आपका उत्तर प्राप्त नही ं होता है अथवा आप
उपस्थित नही ं होते है , तो उपलब्ध अभिलेखों एवं तथ्यों के आधार पर
एकपक्षीय कार्यवाही की जाएगी, जिसकी समस्त जिम्मेदारी आप स्वंय की
रहे गी।
नोटिस आज दिनां क 18-6-26 को मेरे हस्ताक्षर और न्यायालय की
मुद्रा से जारी किया गया।
तहसीलदार
IN SBCWP NO. 14231/2026 (Notice issued by Gram
Panchayat Samiti):
कार्यालय ग्राम पंचायत सम पंचायत समिति सम, मु०जैसलमेर
कमां क/पंचायत/2026/58 दिनां क 27 जून 2026
:: नोटिस ::
यतः ग्राम पंचायत सम के राजस्व ग्राम सम में एक इमारत जो कि बिना किसी
पट्टे या वैद्य दस्तावे ज के निर्मित हे , के सम्बन्ध में किसी के पास रजिस्ट्र े शन,
अनुमति, वैद्य दस्तावे ज पट्टा इत्यादि दस्तावे ज उपलब्ध हो तो सात दिवस के
भीतर ग्राम पंचायत सम में प्रस्तुत करें , अन्यथा उक्त इमारत को हटाने की
नियमानुसार कार्यवाही की जावेगी !
ग्राम विकास अधिकारी
ग्राम पंचायत सम,"
26. At this juncture, reliance can be placed upon the ratio
encapsulated in Madhaymam Broadcasting Ltd. (supra), to
substantiate the view of this Court that in matters pertaining to
national security, the principles of natural justice may not be
applied in their strictest form, this Court is covenant with the
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (29 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
proposition that while complete abrogation of natural justice is
impermissible, its application is not rigid or straitjacketed.
"Liberty thrives in the shadow of law, but the
sovereignty of a nation survives on the
vigilance of its guardians."
Thus, in cases involving national security, confidentiality of
inputs, intelligence considerations, and urgency of action may
legitimately warrant a calibrated or partial exclusion of such
principles. In the present case, it is evident that the doctrine of
audi alteram partem has, in fact, been substantially complied with,
as the show-cause notices have been issued, opportunity of
hearing has been afforded, and sufficient time has been granted.
Contrary to the same, the petitioners, by their own volition, have
elected not to avail such opportunity. Therefore, having failed to
participate in the statutory process, they cannot now be permitted
to invoke writ jurisdiction on the ground of violation of natural
justice. Nevertheless, it is a thought deeply ingrained in the
consciousness of every citizen of this nation that when the security
of the State is at stake, the rigidity of procedure must yield to the
imperative necessity of protection. The relevant extract from
Madhaymam Broadcasting Ltd. (supra), is reproduced
hereinbelow:
"39. The principle of natural justice that is derived
from common law has two primary facets- Audi
Alterum Partem and Nemo Judex In Causa Sua.
Audi Alterum Partem encapsulates the rule of fair
hearing. Nemo Judex In Causa Sua encapsulates the
rule against bias, that is, no person should be a judge
of their own case. It is the case of MBL that MIB did not
comply with the principle
(Uploaded ofat 03:25:03
on 13/07/2026 Audi PM) Alterum Partem
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (30 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
because the reasons for the denial of security clearance
and the material relevant to the decision of revocation
were not disclosed. This, it is argued, infringes upon the
right of MBL to a fair hearing. On the other hand, MIB
contends that it was not required to comply with the
principles of natural justice since the denial of security
clearance is on a matter involving national security,
which is an established exception to the application of
the principles of natural justice.
40. There are three important considerations that
have to be answered in the context:
40.1 Whether the non-disclosure of reasons and
relevant material for the decision to deny security
clearance infringes upon the right to a fair
hearing, that is protected under Article 14 and 21;
40.2 Whether the infringement of the right to a
fair hearing would render the decision void; and
40.3 If considerations of national security are an
established exception to principles of natural
justice, how should the court resolve the
competing interests represented by the principles
of natural justice and national security.
.......
77. It must be noted that this Court in Ex-
Armymen’s Protection Services (supra) referred
to a series of judgments from the Courts in the
United Kingdom to elucidate the principle that the
government is best placed to decide whether
national security concerns are involved; and that
principles of natural justice may not be complied
with when issues of national security are
involved. The evidentiary principle laid down by the
Courts in the United Kingdom needs to be elucidated in
order to understand the scope of the observations in
Ex-Armymen’s Protection Services.
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (31 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
…….
96. The issue is not whether the inference that
national security concerns are involved is
judicially reviewable. It is rather on the standard
of proof that is required to be discharged by the
State to prove that national security concerns are
involved. It is necessary that we understand the
meaning and implications of the term national
security before embarking on an analysis of the
issue.
99. Thus, the expression national security does
not have a fixed meaning. While courts have
attempted to conceptually distinguish national
security from public order, it is impossible (and
perhaps unwise) to lay down a text-book
definition of the expression which can help the
courts decide if the factual situation is covered
within the meaning of the phrase. The phrase
derives its meaning from the context. It is not
sufficient for the State to identify its purpose in
broad conceptual terms such as national security
and public order. Rather, it is imperative for the State
to prove through the submission of cogent material that
non-disclosure is in the interest of national security. It
is the Court’s duty to assess if there is sufficient
material for forming such an opinion. A claim cannot be
made out of thin air without material backing for such a
conclusion. The Court must determine if the State
makes the claim in a bona fide manner. The Court
must assess the validity of the claim of purpose
by determining (i) whether there is material to
conclude that the nondisclosure of the
information is in the interest of national security;
and (ii) whether a reasonable prudent person
would arrive at the same conclusion based on the
material. The reasonable prudent person standard
which is one of the onlowest
(Uploaded 13/07/2026 atstandards
03:25:03 PM) to test the
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (32 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
reasonableness of an action is used to test national
security claims by courts across jurisdictions because of
their deferential perception towards such claims. This is
because courts recognise that the State is best placed
to decide if the interest of national security would be
served. The court allows due deference to the State to
form its opinion but reviews the opinion on limited
grounds of whether there is nexus between the material
and the conclusion. The Court cannot second-guess
the judgment of the State that the purpose
identified would violate India’s national security.
It is the executive wing and not the judicial wing
that has the knowledge of India’s geo-political
relationships to assess if an action is in the
interest of India’s national security.”
(Emphasis supplied)
27. Further, the notification dated 11.10.2021 issued by the
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, in exercise of
powers conferred under Section 139 of the Border Security Force
Act, 1968, assumes significance in the present matters, as by
virtue of the said Gazette Notification No. 3853: CG-DL-E-
11102021-230337, the Central Government has enhanced and
rationalized the territorial jurisdiction and operational powers of
the Border Security Force in border areas, including regions
extending up to 50 kilometres from the International Border. The
said notification reflects a conscious policy decision taken at the
highest level, having regard to the prevailing security scenario,
intelligence inputs, and the need for effective prevention of trans-
border crimes such as smuggling, infiltration, and other activities
prejudicial to national security. Thus, any administrative or
regulatory action undertaken by the competent authorities within
the notified zone,(Uploaded
particularly
on 13/07/2026 in relation
at 03:25:03 PM) to unauthorized
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (33 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
constructions or activities, is required to be viewed in the
backdrop of the enlarged statutory framework and heightened
security considerations. The exercise of such powers cannot be
construed in isolation but must be appreciated as part of a
coordinated national effort to safeguard territorial integrity and
public order.
27.1 This Court places on record its appreciation for the noti-
fication issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 11 October
2021, which reflects a considered and bona fide exercise of statu-
tory powers in the interest of national security and public safety.
The decision to enhance and rationalize the jurisdiction of the Bor-
der Security Force in sensitive border areas manifests a proactive
and well-calibrated approach to address emerging security chal-
lenges, including infiltration, trans-border crimes, and other
threats to the sovereignty and integrity of the nation. Such mea-
sures, undertaken in good faith and backed by legislative author-
ity, demonstrate the commitment of the State to safeguard its ter-
ritorial integrity while ensuring that governance remains respon-
sive to evolving ground realities. The notification, therefore, de-
serves due acknowledgment as a step taken in larger public inter-
est, reinforcing the constitutional duty of the State to protect the
nation and its citizens.
28. This Court further finds that the attempt to attribute a
communal colour to the impugned action is wholly misplaced and
devoid of factual foundation. The material placed on record
indicates that notices have been issued across the board, without
reference to any particular community, wherever structures are
found to be unauthorized
(Uploadedand situated
on 13/07/2026 within
at 03:25:03 PM) the sensitive border
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (34 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
belt. Thus, it has to be made cautiously unambiguous that the
issue at hand is one of national security and regulatory
compliance, and not of religious discrimination. Moreover, during
the course of hearing, the petitioners themselves conceded that in
situations involving a threat to national security, appropriate
action may be undertaken by the competent authorities. At the
same time, it is neither prudent nor desirable to disclose sensitive
intelligence inputs in open proceedings, as such disclosure may
synonms itself compromise security interests.
29. Further, it is noteworthy that the judgments relied upon by
the petitioners, pertaining to demolition of structures in other
contexts, including religious bodies or alleged arbitrary bulldozing,
stand on a completely different footing and are clearly
distinguishable for the reasons delineated ad infra, as the present
matters arise in the backdrop of national security considerations;
the properties in question are situated within a highly sensitive
border zone; admittedly, no permissions have been obtained
under the Act of 1954 or other applicable laws; the show-cause
notices have been issued, and opportunity of hearing has been
granted; no demolition or coercive action has been undertaken till
date; no cogent material has been placed on record to
substantiate allegations of targeted or discriminatory action.
Notably, in Abdul Khalek & Ors. (supra) the issue before the
Court pertained to the properties/encroachers residing inside a
land belonging to forest department, and in Re: Directions in
the Matter of Demolition of Structures (supra), the same
pertained to use of bulldozers upon the land/property belonging to
criminals/convicts/accused, and thus, even in the wildest dreams,
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (35 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
the same cannot be kept at the same pedestal at that of the
present case, where the property in question is in vicinity of
international border and the issue is of national security. Thus, the
reliance placed on such precedents is misconceived.
30. At this juncture, reliance can be placed upon the ratio
encapsulated in Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing
Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh : (1996) 1 SCC 327, wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically ruled that High
Courts should not entertain writ petitions filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution against mere show-cause notices; and that a
party must instead avail of the alternate remedy and respond
directly to the competent authority. It is also significant that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again, by a catena of
judgments, emphasized that public roads or sensitive areas are
not private property; maintaining a zero-tolerance policy,
declaring that religious sentiments cannot justify impeding public
infrastructure, safety, or development. Withal, in the ratio
encapsulated in Council of Civil Service Union v. Minister of
Civil Service : 1985 AC 374, it has been categorically held that
strict observance of the principles of natural justice may not be
possible when national security is involved.
31. This Court also notes that the statutory scheme under
Sections 90-A and 91 of the Act of 1956, coupled with the
provisions of the Act of 1954, provides an adequate and
efficacious remedy to the petitioners. The writ petitions, therefore,
are not maintainable at the stage of show-cause notices,
particularly when disputed questions of fact are involved and
statutory remedies remain
(Uploaded unexhausted.
on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (36 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
32. This Court is of a stout view, as delineated hereinbelow:
जब सीमा पर सन्नाटा भी ख़तरे की भाषा बोलता है ,
तब राष्ट्रधर्म हर विधि से ऊपर मोलता है।
न मंदिर, न मस्जिद, न कोई दीवार बड़ी होती है ,
जब मातृभूमि की रक्षा की बारी खड़ी होती है।
जो भूमि है राष्ट्र की, वह पहले राष्ट्र की ही रहेगी,
हर ईट
ं उसी से पूछेगी, किसकी आज्ञा सहेगी।
आस्था का सम्मान रहे , पर नियमों का भी मान रहे ,
जहाँ सुरक्षा का प्रश्न उठे , वहाँ राष्ट्र प्रधान रहे।क्योंकि सीमाओं की रक्षा में ही स्वतंत्रता का विस्तार है ,
और राष्ट्र की सुरक्षा ही हर नागरिक का संस्कार है।निज स्वार्थ, न निज पहचान, न कोई भेद-विभाजन हो,
जब दे श पुकारे , तब केवल राष्ट्र ही आराधन हो।
Thence, this Court holds that in matters involving national
security, strict adherence to the traditional rigours of natural
justice is not always warranted, and a pragmatic, situation-
responsive approach is permissible, provided that there exists
material justifying such action. In the present case, sufficient
procedural compliance has been made, and no prejudice can be
said to have been caused to the petitioners, who themselves have
abstained from participation. Accordingly, the writ petitions are
held to be not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed.
33. However, before parting away, it is extremely essential to
delineate certain supplementary observations, directions, and the
same are therefore being noted ad infra:
33.1 Considering the element of national security, issues
arising therefrom, and auxiliary issues, a Committee comprising
the District Collector, Superintendent of Police, and representative
of the Border Security Force (BSF) of the area concerned, shall be
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (37 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]constituted to examine cases (on individual basis) involving
sensitive properties;
33.2 In the foregoing backdrop, the constitution of a
Committee comprising, inter alia, an officer of the Border Security
Force ensures that any decision taken is informed by relevant
intelligence, ground realities, and security considerations.
Accordingly, the said Committee is best placed to take an
appropriate and reasoned decision in the matter, balancing
individual rights with the overarching interest of national security;
which shall suffice the principles of naturall justice vis-a-vis the
issue of threat to national security.
33.3 The said Committee shall take decisions on the basis of
available material, evidence, intelligence inputs, and other
relevant considerations, and shall be entitled to adopt a procedure
commensurate with the exigencies of national security;
33.4 The Committee, in discharge of its mandate and having
regard to the exigencies of the situation, may order eviction,
dispossession, demolition, or adopt any other appropriate course
of action, as deemed necessary, considering the material
available, and as per the warrants of the situation and
circumstances.
33.5 It is clarified that while principles of natural justice shall
not be wholly dispensed with, their application may be suitably
tailored, keeping in view the nature of the case, sensitivity
involved, a threat to national security as alleged and larger public
interest, as also categorically upheld in the ratio encapsulated in
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30648] (38 of 38) [CW-13243/2026]
Madhaymam Broadcasting Ltd. (supra), and fairly conceded
by the parties herein.
34. In light of the above, the present batch of writ petitions
stands dismissed. No order is made as to costs. Pending
applications, if any, along with the stay applications, shall stand
disposed.
35. A copy of the present judgment be also placed in the
connected petitions.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Pooja/-
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 03:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 05:13:11 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
