Case Note & Summary
The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur heard a batch of writ petitions filed by several individuals against the State of Rajasthan, Urban Improvement Trust Sri Ganganagar, Land Acquisition Officer UIT, and Municipal Council Sriganganagar. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus declaring the respondents' action of attempting to demolish their residential properties for road widening without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and principles of natural justice. The court took up the lead petition S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9961/2016 for factual background. The petitioners claimed that the subject land originally belonged to erstwhile owners and subsequently changed hands through agreements to sell, ultimately coming into their possession. They asserted they were in lawful and rightful possession. However, the respondents were attempting to dispossess them for construction/widening of a public road without acquiring the land or paying compensation. The petitioners relied on Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 569 to argue that forcible dispossession without following due process and compensation violates constitutional right to property. The respondents countered that the land belonged to UIT under proceedings initiated under Section 90-B(1) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. They argued that agreements to sell do not confer any right, title or interest and have no legal efficacy. They further submitted that the original land was agricultural, later divided and used for residential purposes without requisite conversion. According to the Master Plan 1981-2001, the subject land was recorded as a public road having a width of 80 feet, required for public benefit. The road had been constructed except for a stretch of about 250 metres, but an interim order prevented completion. The court noted the common questions of law and facts and that matters were heard together. Arguments concluded on 13.08.2026 and judgment was reserved, pronounced on 19.08.2026. The provided judgment text is incomplete and does not contain the final decision or ratio decidendi.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Property - Protection Against Forced Dispossession Without Due Process - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14, 21 and 300-A - Petitioners challenged demolition for road widening alleging violation of fundamental rights and principles of natural justice. Court observed that land can only be acquired after following due process and payment of compensation; reliance placed on Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 2 SCC 569. Held that due process compliance is required before dispossession (Paras 1, 9). B) Property Law - Agreement to Sell - Legal Effect of Agreement to Sell - Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, Section 90-B(1) - Respondents contended that agreements to sell do not confer title and land belongs to UIT after Section 90-B(1) proceedings; petitioners claimed lawful possession through such agreements. Court noted competing contentions regarding right, title and interest (Paras 7, 10). C) Land Acquisition - Public Purpose - Road Widening Under Master Plan - Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, Section 90-B(1) - Respondents stated that subject land is recorded as 80 feet public road in Master Plan 1981-2001 and only 250 metres road remains incomplete due to interim order. Court considered balance between public purpose and individual rights (Paras 8, 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the action of respondents in attempting to demolish properties for road widening without following due process of law and paying compensation violates Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and principles of natural justice; whether petitioners have lawful possession based on agreements to sell; whether land belongs to UIT under Section 90-B(1) of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and is recorded as public road in Master Plan 1981-2001; legality of notice dated 22.08.2016.
Law Points
- Right to property under Article 300-A of Constitution of India
- 1950
- fair procedure under Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India
- principles of natural justice
- agreement to sell does not confer title
- land can be acquired only after following due process and payment of compensation
- Section 90-B(1) of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act
- 1956
- Master Plan road width 80 feet
- public purpose versus individual rights
