Yogesh Bhati vs. The Secretary
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, residents of Jodhpur, filed a writ petition challenging a work order issued by the Executive Engineer (North), Jodhpur Development Authority (JDA) on November 17, 2025. This work order pertained to the construction of a road in Khasra Nos. 73 and 74, Megha Awas Yojana, Aanganwa, Jodhpur. The petitioners sought to quash this work order and prevent construction activities, arguing that the land possesses historical, archaeological, and religious significance, including 11th-century inscriptions and remains of the Guhil dynasty. They requested the Department of Archaeology to conduct a survey. The JDA, represented by its counsel, clarified that the inclusion of Khasra No. 73 in the work order was an inadvertent error, which was rectified by an office order dated June 20, 2026, stating that the road construction would only pass through Khasra No. 74.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioners' primary concern was the protection of the land with historical and archaeological significance. The respondent, Jodhpur Development Authority, clarified that the work order initially included Khasra No. 73 due to an inadvertent error, which had since been rectified by an office order dated June 20, 2026. This rectification specified that the road construction would only proceed through Khasra No. 74. Given this clarification and the subsequent rectification, the petitioners' counsel indicated that they would be satisfied if permitted to file a fresh representation before the competent authority. The Court, in light of this limited prayer, disposed of the writ petition with a direction for the petitioner to file a detailed representation with relevant documents to the competent authority of the respondents. The competent authority was directed to consider and decide this representation expeditiously within six weeks by passing a speaking order, in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized that this direction was solely for expeditious redressal and not to decide the representation in a particular manner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the work order dated 17.11.2025 issued by the Executive Engineer (North), Jodhpur Development Authority, for construction in Khasra Nos. 73 and 74, Megha Awas Yojana, Aanganwa, Jodhpur, is liable to be quashed and set aside, considering the alleged historical, archaeological, and religious significance of the land. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the land in question has historical, archaeological, and religious importance, necessitating protection and preservation. While not opposing the road construction itself, they sought appropriate measures to safeguard the site. They relied on the potential presence of 11th-century inscriptions and Guhil dynasty remains. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents, represented by the Jodhpur Development Authority, contended that the inclusion of Khasra No. 73 in the work order was an inadvertent error. This error was subsequently rectified by an office order dated 20.06.2026, clarifying that the proposed road construction would only pass through Khasra No. 74, thereby addressing the petitioners' concerns regarding Khasra No. 73.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 17/07/2026 By way of the present civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought following reliefs :- “ It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed by the petitioner before your Lordships that; this writ petition filed by the petitioner, may kindly be allowed with cost and:
[2026:RJ-JP:32400] (2 of 3) [CW-5168/2026] a. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned Work Order No. F38(39)/NORTH-AB/2025-26/NORTH dated 17.11.2025 issued by Respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed and set aside. b. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Respondents may be restrained from carrying out any construction activity, excavation, or alteration of the land situated near Khasra Nos. 73 and 74, Megha Awas Yojana, Aanganwa, Jodhpur. c. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Respondent No. 3 (Department of Archaeology) be directed to conduct a comprehensive survey of the site to identify, document, and protect the 11th-century inscriptions and remains of the Guhil dynasty. d. Any other order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present matter concerns the protection and preservation of land possessing historical, archaeological, and religious significance, situated in Khasra Nos. 73 and 74, Megha Awas Yojna, Aanganwa, Jodhpur. It is submitted that the respondent(s) have issued a work order for the construction of a road in the Khasra Nos. 73 and 74 under the Megha Awas Scheme. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners do not oppose the construction of the proposed road; however, considering the historical, archaeological, and religious importance of the site, appropriate measures be taken to ensure its protection and preservation. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s) submits that the Executive Engineer (North), Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur had inadvertently issued the work order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure-1) mentioning Khasra Nos. 73 and 74. It is submitted that the said inadvertent error has subsequently been rectified by office order dated 20.06.2026, wherein it has been clarified that the proposed road construction is to pass only
[2026:RJ-JP:32400] (3 of 3) [CW-5168/2026] through Khasra No. 74 and that the inclusion of Khasra No. 73 in the earlier work order was purely inadvertent. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, if the petitioner is permitted to file a fresh representation before the competent authority of respondent(s), who may be directed to decide his representation, expeditiously. In view of the aforesaid limited prayer, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh detailed representation along with relevant documents for redressal of his grievance before the competent authority of respondent(s), expeditiously. In case, such representation is filed, the competent authority of respondent(s) shall consider and decide the said representation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation along with certified copy of the order instant by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the representation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious redressal of petitioner’s grievance. The same may not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner. The stay application and the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J 153/Mrityunjay Singh Rathore/652
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.