# Rajasthan High Court Takes Serious Note of 429 Encroachments on Government Land in Jaipur
**Jaipur, August 25, 2026:** The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has taken a serious view of large-scale encroachments and illegal constructions allegedly carried out on government land and roads in the area under the jurisdiction of the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA).
A Division Bench comprising **Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma** passed the order on August 13, 2026, in **D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9075/2026, Sahab Singh S/o Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.**
The matter came before the Court after the JDA filed an additional affidavit through its Enforcement Officer of Zone PRN (South) 18 & 19. The affidavit contained a list of **429 shops and houses** which, according to the JDA, were encroachments over government land and included constructions allegedly raised over roads.
### Notices already issued to 429 occupants
The Court was informed that notices had already been issued to the persons occupying the identified properties and that they had also been informed about the proceedings pending before the High Court.
Taking note of the situation, the Division Bench observed that a number of houses appeared to have been constructed **“right under the nose” of the concerned Enforcement Officer and the Deputy Commissioner, JDA**, who was responsible for the area.
The Court therefore directed the concerned Enforcement Officer and Deputy Commissioner to file their explanations as to **how such illegal constructions and encroachments were permitted to come up on government land and roads**.
### Court seeks details of unidentified property owners
The Bench also noticed that the JDA’s list did not contain the names of the owners of some of the houses and shops.
The Court consequently directed counsel appearing for the JDA to provide details regarding those properties as well.
The order further directed that notices be issued to **all persons connected with the 429 identified dwellings**. The notices are to be individually served by the concerned Enforcement Officer and also pasted on the respective houses.
The concerned persons have been directed to appear before the Court on the next date of hearing, through counsel, and explain **how the constructions were raised on the land in question**.
### Accountability of JDA officials under scrutiny
The order assumes significance because the Court has not confined its attention merely to the alleged encroachers. It has also called upon the responsible JDA officials to explain how such constructions were allowed to take place.
The direction requiring an explanation from the Enforcement Officer and Deputy Commissioner indicates that the Court is examining not only the legality of the existing constructions but also the **administrative failure, if any, in preventing or controlling the encroachments**.
The Court’s observations put the functioning of the enforcement machinery under direct judicial scrutiny.
### Impleadment application also pending
During the hearing, an application was filed by certain persons seeking their impleadment as parties to the proceedings. The Court directed that a copy of the application be supplied to the counsel appearing for the JDA as well as the writ petitioner, granting them an opportunity to file their responses, if required.
### Matter listed for September 1
The Division Bench has fixed the matter for **September 1, 2026**.
The Court has additionally directed the Registry to publish the order in a newspaper so that all persons covered by the proceedings are made aware of the Court’s directions.
The proceedings could have significant consequences for the 429 identified properties, particularly for occupants who are unable to establish a lawful right, title or authority for the construction or occupation of the government land.
The order also sends a strong message that unauthorised construction on public land and roads cannot be permitted to continue unchecked and that the officials responsible for enforcement may themselves be required to account for how such constructions came into existence.
**Case:** *Sahab Singh S/o Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.*
**Case No.:** D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9075/2026
**CNR:** RJHC020458372026
**Order Date:** August 13, 2026
**Next Date:** September 1, 2026
**Bench:** Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma
**Jaipur, August 25, 2026:** The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has taken a serious view of large-scale encroachments and illegal constructions allegedly carried out on government land and roads in the area under the jurisdiction of the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA).
A Division Bench comprising **Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma** passed the order on August 13, 2026, in **D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9075/2026, Sahab Singh S/o Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.**
The matter came before the Court after the JDA filed an additional affidavit through its Enforcement Officer of Zone PRN (South) 18 & 19. The affidavit contained a list of **429 shops and houses** which, according to the JDA, were encroachments over government land and included constructions allegedly raised over roads.
### Notices already issued to 429 occupants
The Court was informed that notices had already been issued to the persons occupying the identified properties and that they had also been informed about the proceedings pending before the High Court.
Taking note of the situation, the Division Bench observed that a number of houses appeared to have been constructed **“right under the nose” of the concerned Enforcement Officer and the Deputy Commissioner, JDA**, who was responsible for the area.
The Court therefore directed the concerned Enforcement Officer and Deputy Commissioner to file their explanations as to **how such illegal constructions and encroachments were permitted to come up on government land and roads**.
### Court seeks details of unidentified property owners
The Bench also noticed that the JDA’s list did not contain the names of the owners of some of the houses and shops.
The Court consequently directed counsel appearing for the JDA to provide details regarding those properties as well.
The order further directed that notices be issued to **all persons connected with the 429 identified dwellings**. The notices are to be individually served by the concerned Enforcement Officer and also pasted on the respective houses.
The concerned persons have been directed to appear before the Court on the next date of hearing, through counsel, and explain **how the constructions were raised on the land in question**.
### Accountability of JDA officials under scrutiny
The order assumes significance because the Court has not confined its attention merely to the alleged encroachers. It has also called upon the responsible JDA officials to explain how such constructions were allowed to take place.
The direction requiring an explanation from the Enforcement Officer and Deputy Commissioner indicates that the Court is examining not only the legality of the existing constructions but also the **administrative failure, if any, in preventing or controlling the encroachments**.
The Court’s observations put the functioning of the enforcement machinery under direct judicial scrutiny.
### Impleadment application also pending
During the hearing, an application was filed by certain persons seeking their impleadment as parties to the proceedings. The Court directed that a copy of the application be supplied to the counsel appearing for the JDA as well as the writ petitioner, granting them an opportunity to file their responses, if required.
### Matter listed for September 1
The Division Bench has fixed the matter for **September 1, 2026**.
The Court has additionally directed the Registry to publish the order in a newspaper so that all persons covered by the proceedings are made aware of the Court’s directions.
The proceedings could have significant consequences for the 429 identified properties, particularly for occupants who are unable to establish a lawful right, title or authority for the construction or occupation of the government land.
The order also sends a strong message that unauthorised construction on public land and roads cannot be permitted to continue unchecked and that the officials responsible for enforcement may themselves be required to account for how such constructions came into existence.
**Case:** *Sahab Singh S/o Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.*
**Case No.:** D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9075/2026
**CNR:** RJHC020458372026
**Order Date:** August 13, 2026
**Next Date:** September 1, 2026
**Bench:** Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma