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)