Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Imran Khan S/O Shri Abdul Majid vs The State Of Rajasthan on 2 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 503/2024
Imran Khan S/o Shri Abdul Majid, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Ward No 14 Tehsil Chaksu Mohalla Dalalan ,chaksu, District
Jaipur (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Secretary,
Local Self Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur(Raj).
2. Director, Local Self Government Department, Local Self
Department Directorate, Jaipur (Raj).
3. District Collector, Jaipur (Raj).
4. Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Chaksu, District Jaipur
(Raj).
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17020/2025
Suo Moto, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, A. Central Government Authorities 1.
Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road
Transport And Highways (Morth), Transport Bhawan, 1,
Parliament Street, New Delhi- 110001.
2. National Highways Authority Of India (Nhai) Through The
Chairman, G-5 And 6, Sector- 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-
110075.
3. National Road Safety Board (Nrsb), Through The
Chairperson, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways,
New Delhi- 110001.
4. State Government Authorities (Rajasthan), 4. State Of
Rajasthan Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur- 302005.
5. Principal Secretary, Department Of Transport,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur- 302005.
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 01:31:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 05:42:25 PM)
(2 of 8) [CW-503/2024]
6. Principal Secretary, Department Of Home (Road Safety),
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur- 302005.
7. Rajasthan State Road Safety Council (Rsrsc) Through Its
Member Secretary, Transport Department, Jaipur.
8. Chief Engineer (Road Safety And Traffic), Public Works
Department, Rajasthan, Pwd Headquarters, Jaipur-
302005.
9. C. Police And Traffic Enforcement Authorities, 9. Director
General Of Police (Dgp), Rajasthan Police, Police
Headquarters, Lal Kothi, Jaipur- 302015.
10. Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur Commissionerate, Police
Commissionerate Building, Lal Kothi, Jaipur- 302015.
11. Additional Commissioner Of Police (Traffic), Jaipur, Police
Commissionerate, Lal Kothi, Jaipur- 302015.
12. D. Urban And Local Development Authorities, 12.
Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority (Jda), Jda
Campus, Lal Kothi, Jaipur- 302015.
13. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Jaipur Heritage,
Chomu House, Jaipur- 302001.
14. Regional Transport Officer (Rto), Jaipur, Parivahan
Bhawan, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur- 302005. District Collector,
Jaipur, Collectorate, Bani Park, Jaipur- 302016.
—-Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17238/2025
Suo Moto, Rajasthan High Court Bench Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Uzma Ilyas
Ms. Aafreen Rizvi
Ms. Saziya Khan on behalf of
Mr. Syed Saadat Ali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AG
Mr. Bharat Vyas, ASG
Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG with
Ms. Shikha Sharma
Ms. Naina Bhaskar
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 01:31:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 05:42:25 PM)
(3 of 8) [CW-503/2024]
Mr. Kanhaiya Lal
Choudhary
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
02/04/2026
1. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Advocate General and Mr.
Bharat Vyas, learned ASG fairly submit that the broader issue
involved herein is covered by a judgment rendered by this Court in
Himmat Singh Gehlot vs. State of Rajasthan & Pors. (D.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.24826/2025), decided on 05.02.2026.
The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under :-
“12. In view of the grave road accidents that have occurred
and the material placed before this Court demonstrating
large-scale encroachments within the Right of Way (ROW)
of National Highways across the State of Rajasthan,
comprising 103 religious structures, 881 residential
structures, and 1,232 commercial structures, as reflected in
the list furnished by the respondent National Highways
Authority of India and referred to in paragraph 7 herein,
this Court, in the interest of public safety and justice,
directs that all such encroachments falling within the
prohibited ROW shall be removed or suitably relocated
within a period of two months from today.
12.1. For the said purpose, Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3
shall undertake coordinated action, in consultation with and
with the assistance of the concerned District Collector and
the Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police. The
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 01:31:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 05:42:25 PM)
(4 of 8) [CW-503/2024]Respondent No. 10 and Respondent No. 11 shall extend
necessary technical, logistical, and site-specific assistance
to ensure effective compliance of this direction.
12.2. The exercise shall be carried out strictly in
accordance with law, after due demarcation, issuance of
notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the
encroachers.
13. Furthermore, it is directed that the State shall file
before this Court a district-wise status report within a
period of two months from today, detailing the
encroachments identified within the Right of Way (ROW)
and the control line of National and State Highways, along
with the action taken or proposed for their removal. The
said report shall be filed by Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3
after obtaining necessary inputs from Respondent Nos. 10
and 11, in tandem with the district authorities.
13.1. It is also directed that the State shall clarify, in the
aforesaid status report within a period of two months
from today, whether rules regulating roadside activities and
access to Highways under Sections 138(1A) and 210-D of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been framed or are
proposed to be framed, in compliance with the directions
issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Rajaseekaran
(supra). The status report shall, as far as practicable, be
supported by GIS mapping, site demarcation records, and
relevant photographic material.
14. The respondents are permitted to seek appropriate
legal assistance from Mr. Deepak Chandak, learned
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 01:31:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 05:42:25 PM)
(5 of 8) [CW-503/2024]Additional Advocate General, for the purpose of proper
understanding and effective implementation of this order,
so as to ensure strict compliance with the statutory
framework and the Highway safety norms explained herein.
15. In order to operationalise the above directions in a
structured, accountable and preventive manner across the
State, this Court further directs as under:
A. Declaration of Legal Position:
• All occupations within the ROW/road land boundary of
National and State Highways shall be treated as per se illegal
and incapable of regularisation.
B. Administrative Supervision and Institutional Mechanism:
• Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 along with the respective
District Collector and the Commissioner Police/Superintendent
of of Police shall bear overall responsibility of execution, and
shall, within seven days, constitute a District Highway Safety
Task Force comprising officers of the District Administration,
Police, NHAI, PWD and concerned local bodies for coordinated
demarcation and removal action.
• The District Collector shall maintain minutes of all meetings
and proceedings undertaken by the Task Force at district
level.
C. Scientific Demarcation and Identification Process:
• Demarcation of the ROW/road land boundary/building
line/control line shall be carried out with videography, GPS
coordinates and GIS mapping.
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 01:31:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 05:42:25 PM)
(6 of 8) [CW-503/2024]• A district-wise Encroachment Register shall be maintained
containing photographs, geo-coordinates and particulars of
each identified occupation.
• Accident-prone and identified blackspot stretches shall be
prioritised for immediate demarcation and action.
D. Regulatory and Preventive Measures:
• No department, authority or local body shall grant or renew
any licence, NOC, permission, utility connection or trade approval
for any site falling within Highway safety zones without prior
clearance from NHAI/PWD, as the case may be.
• Existing licences, NOCs or permissions in respect of such
sites shall be reviewed within 15 days and kept in abeyance upon
detection of violation.
• After removal of encroachments, permanent boundary
markers and caution boards shall be installed to prevent future
occupation.
• Police authorities shall provide necessary protection during
the removal process and shall take preventive measures to ensure
that re-encroachment does not occur on the demarcated Highway
safety zones.
E. Accountability, Reporting and Future Compliance :
• Responsibility of officers for compliance of these directions
shall be specifically indicated in the status report to be filed
before this Court.
• Compliance affidavits shall be filed by Respondent Nos. 1, 2,
and 3 after completion of the exercise.
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 01:31:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 05:42:25 PM)
(7 of 8) [CW-503/2024]• The State shall indicate a definite timeline for framing rules
under Sections 138(1A) and 210-D of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 regulating roadside activities and access control.
• Periodic Highway safety audits, in coordination with
NHAI/PWD, shall be institutionalised and reflected in the
status report.”
2. This Court in Himmat Singh Gehlot (supra) has given further
directions vide order dated 13.03.2026 which reads as under:-
“26. It is pertinent to note that the Mining Department
is legally empowered to permit and regulate check-
posts and monitor mineral transportation, including the
E-Ravana and transit/royalty pass mechanism, while
the installation and operation of weighbridges fall
within the jurisdiction of the Legal Metrology
Department. These functions are intrinsically
interconnected, since the collection of royalty based on
the weight of minerals transported from mining leases
or quarry areas necessarily requires the use of
weighbridges. Denial thereof, would thus result
not only in illegal and surreptitious mining but also loss
to the State exchequer on account of pilferage in the
royalty payments.
27. Aside above, it is also clarified that, insofar as
Respondent Nos. 12 to 16 are concerned, they have
stated on oath before this Court that their Dharm
Kantas have been relocated to a distance of 75 metres
away from the National Highway. This position has not
been disputed at this stage, either by NHAI or the State
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 01:31:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 05:42:25 PM)
(8 of 8) [CW-503/2024]authorities. In view thereof, they are henceforth
permitted to continue their business activities as per
the sanction accorded to them by the competent
authority of the State”.
3. This Court is satisfied with the aforesaid proposition as put
forth by the learned Advocate General and the learned ASG and
finds that the issue raised in the present case is covered by the
judgment rendered in the case of Himmat Singh Gehlot (supra).
4. In view of the above, while disposing of the present writ
petitions, in terms of the judgment rendered in Himmat Singh
Gehlot (supra) and observing that the directions contained in the
said judgment shall form part of the present order and binding
upon the respondents, the parties are given liberty to approach
this Court again, in case any ancillary issue, pertaining to the
controversy raised herein, remains for adjudication.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
AnilS/Sanjay10-12
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 01:31:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 05:42:25 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
