Rajasthan High Court | ‘No Sympathy for Encroachers’ | State Directed to Remove Illegal Road and Footpath Constructions, Officials Liable for Inaction
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Rajasthan Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit has directed the Jaipur Development Authority and the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, to identify and remove illegal encroachments on roads and pedestrian pathways connected to Jaipur by State Highways and National Highways. The Court further ordered that municipal authorities across Rajasthan initiate similar action at the city and township levels. A compliance report is to be presented before the Bench at the next hearing.
The proceedings arose from a contempt petition registered as D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 378 of 2025, linked to D.B. Civil Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 17971 of 2022. The petitioners, represented by counsel Mr. V.P. Mathur appearing for Mr. Shiv Narain Bohra, alleged non-compliance with earlier judicial directions requiring removal of unauthorized encroachments. The respondents were represented by Additional Advocate General Mr. Manoj Sharma, assisted by Mr. S.M. Sharma, Mr. Amit Kuri, and Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Shekhawat.
During the contempt proceedings, an impleadment application was filed seeking to add parties as contemnors. The Bench dismissed the application, holding that contempt petitions are strictly between the Court and those to whom its orders are addressed. It recorded that there is no statutory provision permitting impleadment of third parties in contempt matters.
On examining the alleged non-compliance, the Court revived the connected writ petition, noting that the issues originally raised regarding encroachments required continued judicial oversight. The matter was directed to be listed again on 7 October 2025 for monitoring.
In the meantime, the Bench directed the Jaipur Development Authority and the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, to begin identifying encroachments on roads connected to Jaipur through State and National Highways. The Court directed that the Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan should serve as the benchmark for measuring road widths and pedestrian pathways to determine unauthorized occupation.
The Court made clear that encroachments could not be justified by pattas issued by village authorities or by reliance on judicial orders, as public pathways are intended for free access. It held that no authority, including courts, could permit or encourage such encroachments.
The Bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in In Re: Manoj Tibrewal Akash [W.P. (C) No. 1294 of 2020], decided on 6 November 2024, which dealt with similar issues of encroachment and set out principles to ensure protection of roads and footpaths. Following this precedent, the High Court directed the Additional Chief Secretary to issue instructions to Municipal Corporations and Councils across Rajasthan to conduct statewide anti-encroachment drives.
The Division Bench observed: “There is no rule of impleadment of any person as a contemnor in the contempt proceedings. The contempt petition is always between the Court and the persons to whom the directions have been issued.”
In addressing the non-compliance, the Court stated: “Considering the contempt petition and non-compliance, we deem it appropriate to revive D.B. Civil Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No.17971/2022.”
On the identification of encroachments, the Bench directed: “As per the measurements of the roads laid down in the plan, if any encroachment is found on the roads or on the pathways meant for the pedestrians, the same shall be removed. It is made clear that apart from the roads, even on the side walk-ways, there should be no encroachment left.”
The order also recorded: “As no Court is authorized to encourage encroachments, the same would not come in the way for removing the encroachments.”
Relying on the Supreme Court’s pronouncement, the Bench observed: “The Additional Chief Secretary of the Urban Development and Housing Department shall also issue appropriate directions to the Municipal Corporation and Municipal Councils of various cities & towns to take appropriate steps for removing illegal encroachments made on the roads in the city/town-ship as well as on the footpaths.”
The Court dismissed the impleadment application as misconceived and revived the pending writ petition for further hearing. It directed the Jaipur Development Authority and the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, to earmark encroachments on State and National Highways leading into Jaipur, and to remove them in accordance with the Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan.
It ordered that no pattas or other judicial orders could shield such encroachments. The Additional Chief Secretary was directed to issue instructions for similar drives by Municipal Corporations and Councils across Rajasthan.
The Bench further directed that before demolition, encroachers must be given seven to eight days to remove unauthorized structures themselves. Thereafter, the cost of removal should be recovered from the encroachers. The Court also directed that action may be taken against any authority or police official found to have facilitated such encroachments.
A compliance report was ordered to be submitted on 7 October 2025. Responsible officers from the concerned departments and enforcement wings were directed to remain present before the Court on that date.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. V.P. Mathur for Mr. Shiv Narain Bohra
For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG assisted by Mr. S.M. Sharma, Mr. Amit Kuri, Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Shekhawat
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Boyat & Ors. v. Vaibhav Galriya, Principal Secretary & Ors.
Case Number: D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 378/2025 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 17971/2022
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Justice Sanjeet Purohit
