The Rajasthan High Court, sitting as a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma, passed an order on 4 July 2026 directing the Revenue Secretary to initiate departmental proceedings against the Tehsildar and Patwari of Khedli village in Karauli district. The Court found that the two revenue officials had failed to remove illegal encroachments on government land despite multiple judicial directions to that effect and had not offered any explanation for their inaction.
The matter originated from a petition filed by Roopraj Prajapat against the State of Rajasthan and others, in which the petitioner sought the removal of encroachments affecting public property. The Court had previously issued several orders requiring the concerned revenue authorities to clear the encroachments within a stipulated time. When the officials did not comply, the Court sought explanations from them. Instead of providing a satisfactory reply, the Tehsildar and Patwari admitted the existence of encroachments and requested an additional seven days to effect their removal.
The bench characterised this conduct as showing a lack of regard for the Court’s authority and as being disrespectful. It observed that the officials’ admission of the encroachments coupled with their request for further time demonstrated that they were not performing their statutory duties and were indifferent to the judicial directions issued in the case.
In view of the foregoing, the Court held that the officials were guilty of dereliction of duty and ordered the Revenue Secretary to initiate departmental proceedings under the relevant service rules. The Tehsildar and Patwari were directed to remain suspended from their posts until the conclusion of those proceedings. The suspension is intended to ensure that the inquiry proceeds without interference and to uphold the dignity of the Court’s orders.
In addition to the suspension, the bench issued directions to the Additional Advocate General to instruct the Station House Officer of the concerned village and other revenue authorities to immediately remove the encroachments. The AAG was also required to file a compliance report on the next date of hearing, which has been fixed for 8 July 2026. The Court emphasized that the removal of encroachments must be carried out forthwith and that any further delay would be viewed as contempt of its earlier directions.
The order underscores the Court’s willingness to enforce its judgments through coercive measures when executive authorities fail to act. By linking the suspension of the officers to the initiation of departmental proceedings, the bench sought to create a deterrent against future non‑compliance. The decision also highlights the judiciary’s role in supervising the execution of its orders, particularly in matters concerning the protection of public land from unauthorized occupation.
Legal practitioners note that the ruling reinforces the principle that judicial directions concerning the removal of encroachments are not merely advisory but mandatory, and that persistent non‑implementation can attract both civil and disciplinary consequences. The case is likely to be cited in future proceedings where public authorities are alleged to have neglected court‑mandated actions.