1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2330/2005 (Lala Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2331/2005 (Smt. Bhagwati Devi Vs. State of Rajsathan & Ors.) DATE OF JUDGMENT : 26.10.2007 HON'BLE DR. VINEET KOTHARI,J. Mr. K. K. Shah, for the petitioners. Mr.O. P. Boob, G. A. for the respondent State. BY THE COURT: 1. The grievances raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions are that they have constructed the staircase for access to their residential house on the drain along-with side the pubic road and that is permitted by Section 203 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. The petitioners have challenged the notice (Annex. 3) dated 08.04.2005 given to them by the competent authority – Municipality Jodhpur, wherein they have been asked to remove their encroachment as the municipality has taken a decision to widen the Paota 'C' Road in question up to 80 feet. Admittedly, the said staircase would come as an encroachment in the way of widening of the said road up to 80 feet. The said notice gave an opportunity to the petitioner to 2/2 produce his document showing any right, title or interest over the said land over which he has constructed the said staircase. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner does not have any legal right over the said place where he has constructed the said staircase and if the said place is required for widening the road, he would remove the encroachment. 2. The impugned notice (Annex. 3) is merely a notice given to the petitioner to either show his documents relating to his right, title or interest over the disputed portion of the public way, where he has constructed the staircase or remove the same as the same was apparently found to be an encroachment and came in the way of widening of the road in question. 3. This Court is of the opinion that no interference can be made against the said notice at the instance of the petitioner and if the encroachment on the public way is required to be removed and the same is considered expedient for the public interest, no relief against such pubic interest can be granted to the petitioner by way of this writ petition. 4. The writ petition is found to be devoid of the merit and the same is accordingly, dismissed. (Dr. VINEET KOTHARI) J. preety Item No. 11