Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 39 To 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 79NOMINAL INDEXUrban Improvement Trust v Poonam Chand; 2026 Live Law (Raj) 39Rajeev Bhandari v Jodhpur Development authority & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 40National Insurance Company Ltd. v Manju Bai & Ors., and anr. connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 41Arvind Charan v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj)...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 39 To 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 79
NOMINAL INDEX
Urban Improvement Trust v Poonam Chand; 2026 Live Law (Raj) 39
Rajeev Bhandari v Jodhpur Development authority & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 40
National Insurance Company Ltd. v Manju Bai & Ors., and anr. connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 41
Arvind Charan v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 42
Vivek Yadav v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 43
Ritu Khatri v Navneet Khanna; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 44
Devkrishna & Ors. v Kaluram & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 45
Ms Manju Jain v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 46
Hans Raj v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 47
Vimal Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 48
Aryan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 49
Pradeep Kumar Sarwogi v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 50
2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 51
Divik Ostwal v Ambika Jain and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 52
Lajendra Singh v State; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 53
Mahaveer Singh Rathore v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 54
Laxman Kumawat v Madan Singh & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 55
Smt. Gulab Devi v Union of India; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 56
KC Jain v State of Rajasthan & Anr; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 57
Smt. Bhauri Devi v Mahendra Kumar & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 58
Dekaran Singh v Pyare Lal & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 59
Mohan Singh v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 60
Arvind Kumar Gupta v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 61
Smt. Chaya Sethi & Ors. v Jitendra Bohra & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 62
Jai Kishan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 63
Himmat Singh Gehlot v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 64
Smt. Meena Devi & Ors. v Rahul Haldiya & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 65
Mahaveer v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 66
M.r. College of Physiotherapy; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 67
Aryaman Nursing College v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 68
Rakesh Kumar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 69
Fateh Mohammad v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 70
Smt. Kanta Kumawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 71
Sunil v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 72
Atal Khandelwal v Institute of Health Management Research; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 73
Smt. Imrawati Devi & Ors. v Ramveer & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 74
Smt. Khushboo v Manohar; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 75
Health and Education Care Society v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 76
Govaram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 77
Soma v State; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 78
Roop Singh v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 79
Order/Judgments of the Month
'Jurisdictional Transgression': Rajasthan High Court Quashes Lok Adalat Order On Title Dispute
Title: Urban Improvement Trust v Poonam Chand
Citation: 2026 Live Law (Raj) 39
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) cannot decide dispute on issuance of pattas (title deed) since it involves determination of land title, ownership and proprietary rights which are matters of serious civil consequences requiring full-fledged adjudication under the procedure of law.
While setting aside an order by a Permanent Lok Adalat, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the salutary object of expeditious and efficient adjudication with which PLAs were constituted could not be achieved by bypassing the legally mandated procedures. It was opined that every legal process could not be shortened in the name of speed.
“PLA is a quasi judicial authority having a limited and circumscribed jurisdiction. The PLA is not a court of plenary jurisdiction and does not possess the authority to adjudicate disputes by adopting the regular and elaborate procedure of law as is required in civil proceedings… It was never the legislative intent to convert the PLA into an alternative forum to civil courts for adjudication of intricate civil disputes, especially those involving property rights, succession, transfer, or competing claims of ownership.”
Non-Borrowers Can Approach DRT If Affected By SARFAESI Action, Writ Not Maintainable: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Rajeev Bhandari v Jodhpur Development authority & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 40
While rejecting the writ petition filed by a flat purchaser which was declared a secured asset, the Rajasthan High Court held that even if a person was not a borrower or a guarantor, s/he was entitled to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) if their rights were affected by the notice issued under the SARFAESI Act, and they were “aggrieved person”.
Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Ors. which held that borrower, guarantor or any person who may be affected could approach the Tribunal.
In this light, the Court opined, “Although, the petitioner is neither a borrower nor a guarantor, however, since his rights are grievously affected by the impugned notice, he is an aggrieved person and can very well approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal”.
Title: National Insurance Company Ltd. v Manju Bai & Ors., and anr. connected petition
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 41
The Rajasthan High Court has asserted that claimants cannot be allowed to claim compensation both under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“MV Act”) and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (“WC Act”), for the same accident, and opined that once the compensation was received under one Act, filing subsequent claim under another Act was abuse of the process of law.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand rejected the argument that compensation awarded by one forum could be adjusted against the amount awarded by another, and observed that the Courts could not be treated as a bargaining forum.
“Such argument of the counsel for the claimants-respondents has no force because the Courts cannot be treated as a bargaining forums and the claimants cannot be allowed to approach two different forums and if they feel that they have not got sufficient amount of compensation then for getting more compensation they can approach the subsequent forum.”
Title: Arvind Charan v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 42
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the order of compulsory retirement of a police inspector based on “ineffectiveness”, opining it to be arbitrary and based on selective reliance on minor penalties while ignoring his consistent outstanding service record that reflected “good” and “very good” performance.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the State failed to follow the binding guidelines under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (“the Rules”) and the circular dated April 21, 2000 issued by the Department of Personnel (DoP) that laid down that if compulsory retirement was proposed based on “ineffectiveness”, the employee's performance of past 5 years had to be considered primarily.
Title: Vivek Yadav v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 43
While expressing pain over the rise in digital scams costing people their hard-earned money, Rajasthan High Court said that it is right time to launch a public campaign through print, electronic, social media, television and radio, to reach the general public and create awareness about remaining careful while doing any online transactions.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further took note of data being sold by some of the social media companies which gets misused, and said that strict action must be taken against all the delinquents, including such companies.
High Income Of Husband Doesn't Automatically Mean High Maintenance For Wife: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Ritu Khatri v Navneet Khanna
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 44
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a petition filed by a wife seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 8000 per month, on the ground that the husband was earning more than Rs. 1.5 Lakhs per month, opining that maintenance could not be claimed on a straight-jacket formula that a fixed proportion of husband's income had to be awarded.
"The law does not envisage that because the husband earns more, the wife must necessarily receive half or a substantial fraction thereof. Such an approach would amount to converting maintenance proceedings into a de facto claim for sharing of income or property, which is impermissible," Justice Farjand Ali said.
The Court further opined that the respondent's conduct of regularly depositing maintenance could also not be brushed aside lightly since that reflected bona fides, gentlemanship and a responsible approach towards judicial orders.
“Courts are not oblivious to conduct of parties, as equity and good conscience are integral to the dispensation of justice.”
Title: Devkrishna & Ors. v Kaluram & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 45
The Rajasthan High Court has held that accepting report of service of summons is a solemn act and not merely a formality. It is court's duty to examine the process serving officer if the report was not an affidavit. And even if the report was on affidavit, it is court's discretion to examine the officer to ascertain the correctness of the report.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the intention of serving summons was to make the party aware of proceedings against him/her so that no decision was reached behind his/her back. Hence, it is court's primary duty to adhere to all procedural requirements prior to proceeding ex-parte against the concerned party.
“Proof of the service of summons is essential condition for proceeding ex-parte against the concerned defendant. It was incumbent on the part of the trial Court to examine the Process Server and the witnesses of the refused notice/summon on oath. Obviously, the intention of such examination is to see that chances of a false endorsement of such attempt to serve the summons and refusal thereof are minimized.”
Advocate Forced To Litigate For Fees, Paid After 15-Year Delay By State
Title: Ms Manju Jain v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 46
A woman advocate practicing for almost 32 years at the Rajasthan High Court, received her professional fees for acting as advocate for the National Rural Health Mission (“NRHM”) in 84 petitions, only after 15 years, upon filing a legal case against the State.
The petitioner was engaged by NRHM in 2010 as its advocate for appearing in a bunch of 84 petitions which were decided by the Court in 2011. Subsequently, an invoice of Rs. 4.25 Lakhs was raised by the petitioner towards these petitions.
It was only after almost 7 years of the case being filed, that an affidavit was filed by the concerned Project Director, NRHM, declaring a cheque of Rs. 4.25 Lakhs being handed over to the petitioner towards her professional fees.
Based on this affidavit and the cheque received by the petitioner, withdrawal application was filed before the Court which was allowed by the bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena.
Wrong Charge Strikes At Root Of Disciplinary Action: Rajasthan High Court Reinstates CRPF Constable
Title: Hans Raj v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 47
The Rajasthan High Court has held that while the form of the charge sheet overrides the substance but when its foundation itself is based on a wrong charge, the State cannot subsequently dilute or reinterpret the charge to suit the outcome of the enquiry.
While setting aside the suspension of the petitioner-constable, the bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that the disciplinary authority has to classify the misconduct correctly before proceedings to punishment, otherwise the entire action becomes arbitrary.
After hearing the contentions, the Court rejected the argument put forth by the State and held,
“The submission of the respondents that the use of the term “deserter” is inconsequential and that the proceedings must be read as relating to absence without leave cannot be accepted… while form cannot override substance, the nature of the charge determines the standard of proof, procedural safeguards and proportionality of punishment. Where the charge-sheet itself proceeds on the premise hat the delinquent has “deserted the Force”, the respondents cannot subsequently dilute or reinterpret the charge to suit the outcome of the enquiry.”
Title: Vimal Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 48
The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief of expunging adverse remarks made by the trial court not only against the petitioner police officer, but also against another officer who did not approach the court for relief.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman held that just because the other officer did not approach the court, it could not be said that the adverse remarks made against him were correct. It was held, based on the principle of parity, when a specific action was found to be legally infirm, the benefit extended to one party had to be extended to others similarly placed.
Title: Aryan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 49
The Rajasthan High Court has urged the Centre to comprehensively review the statutory framework under the POCSO Act, in light of the existing gap between the protective intent of the Act and the sociological reality of adolescent autonomy.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman suggested to consider introduction of a clause granting exemption in cases where the supposed perpetrator and victim were young adults of almost same age, in a consensual relationship.
It observed that POCSO Act was enacted to protect children from sexual predators. It could not be used to persecute young adults, involved in consensual but socially unacceptable relationships.
The Court held that rigidly applying POCSO in a case involving a 17 year old girl and a 19 years old boy in a consensual relationship, ignored the lived reality of adolescent autonomy and converted a protective status into a punitive tool of social regulation.
Title: Pradeep Kumar Sarwogi v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 50
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the Passport authorities can't compel an applicant to get permission of criminal court for passport renewal, merely due to pendency of criminal proceedings against him, especially when the proceedings were stayed and the court had not restrained possession of passport.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 (the Act) does not contemplate an absolute or automatic bar on issuance/renewal of passport, solely due to pendency of criminal proceedings. The restriction is qualified, purpose-oriented and meant to secure amenability of accused to criminal jurisdiction.
It was held that difference between renewal of a passport and permission to leave the country was fundamental, wherein renewal by itself just enabled possession of a valid civil document, without conferring any right to travel or diluting authority of criminal court.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 51
In a significant order passed last week, the Rajasthan High Court has directed the State authorities to mandatorily accept, record and register all Christian marriages solemnized in accordance with the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 (ICM Act), in respect of which a certificate has been issued under the Act.
In its detailed order, a Bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sangeeta Sharma has sought to clarify the prevailing confusion in the state regarding the interplay between the ICM Act 1872 and the Rajasthan Compulsory Marriage Registration Act, 2009 (RCMR Act).
Importantly, the Court has clarified that there is no apparent incongruity between the ICM Act 1872 and the RCMR Act 2009. The Court noted the exclusion of Christian marriages from the 2009 Act under Section 20 is a 'protective' mechanism rather than 'exclusionary'.
The Bench emphasized that the processes of registration, acknowledgment, and endorsement of marriages by civil authorities perform a "vital public function".
"They bridge the sphere of religious or personal law solemnization with the secular framework of State-maintained civil records, ensuring that marriages are capable of objective verification in dealings with public authorities and private institutions alike", the Court noted.
Title: Divik Ostwal v Ambika Jain and other connected petition
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 52
While rejecting the revision petition filed by the wife seeking enhancement of the interim maintenance, Rajasthan High Court held that such relief was discretionary and temporary, to prevent destitution of the aggrieved during the proceedings, which was granted by the court without undertaking a detailed adjudication.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that grant of interim maintenance was not final or conclusive determination either of the wife's entitlement or the quantum of the same. It was observed that such maintenance did not amount to determination of arrears or conferring any share in the husband's income.
“The very nature of interim maintenance presupposes that the Court is not expected to undertake a detailed roving inquiry or a meticulous adjudication on disputed questions of fact, which are otherwise within the exclusive domain of the final adjudication after evidence is led by the parties.”
Title: Lajendra Singh v State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 53
While setting aside a POCSO conviction against a former Sarpanch, Rajasthan High Court observed that it was highly improbable that once rape was committed upon a minor girl, she would voluntarily accompany the alleged perpetrator to another place.
Furthermore, while raising suspicion over the age of the victim, the division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma opined that while a school certificate was relevant, when contradictory material existed in government documents, the earliest admission record assumed determinative significance.
“When the evidence is appreciated cumulatively, it becomes evident that the prosecution case is riddled with inconsistencies, omissions, and investigative deficiencies…The minority of the prosecutrix is not conclusively established; the foundational story is improbable; the delay in FIR is unexplained; the earliest version is withheld; independent corroborative evidence is absent; and the medical evidence does not support the prosecution narrative.”
Title: Mahaveer Singh Rathore v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 54
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an RAS officer challenging rejection of his resignation by the State as well as an order imposing penalty of removal from service, opining that considering the conduct of the petitioner, the State's actions did not suffer from any legal infirmity.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma held that no vested or automatic right was created in favour of the employee merely by filing a resignation, especially when the State was contemplating initiation of departmental proceedings against the employee.
“…resignation tendered by a public servant cannot be construed as an absolute right to exit service, particularly when departmental proceedings for serious misconduct are under contemplation or actively pending. The acceptance of resignation remains within the discretionary domain of the competent authority, who after weighing the larger public interest, the gravity of allegations and the necessity to uphold administrative discipline against the employee's convenience.”
Title: Laxman Kumawat v Madan Singh & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 55
While underscoring the ground realities of working conditions for daily-wage workers, Rajasthan High Court held that not every daily wage worker received paid-rest day every week. Hence, they cannot afford such unpaid rest day. Therefore, calculation of a daily wage worker's monthly wage should not happen based on 26 days, rather than 30 days.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the 26-day rule was followed based on a notification/circular issued by the Ministry & Department of Labour, which presumed that such labour remained on holiday for one day every week, based on mandates of Labour Laws that required workers to get at least one day off per week.
However, the Court highlighted that the ground reality was completely different wherein not a single daily wager got paid for any of the rest days. And in this light, considering the financial situation of such labour, they cannot afford to take rest days which were unpaid.
Title: Smt. Gulab Devi v Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 56
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order of the Railways Claims Tribunal that rejected a claim filed by the petitioner in relation to her son's death, opining that whenever any untoward incident happens within the Railway premises or any railway track, the presumption lies against the Railway Authorities unless any evidence is submitted, suggesting otherwise.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition filed by a mother challenging rejection of her claim filed in relation to her son's death following an untoward incident while he was allegedly travelling in the train.
Title: KC Jain v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 57
The Rajasthan High Court directed the State to pay salary and wages to the petitioner for the period of his compulsory retirement following the decision of the appellate authority that set aside the order of compulsory retirement after finding that the petitioner's past service records were not so poor to warrant such action.
The bench of Justice Praveer Bhatnagar made reference to a Supreme Court case of Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Ors. in which similar matter was dealt with and it was held,
“…appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits. The fault lies with the respondents in not having utilised the services of the appellant…Had the appellant been allowed to continue in service, he would have readily discharged his duties. Having restrained him from rendering his services…the respondent cannot be allowed to press the self-serving plea of denying him wages for the period in question, on the plea of the principle of "no work pay."
Rajasthan HC Orders DNA Test Of 93-Year-Old To Determine Daughter's Maternity In Property Dispute, Says No Presumption Of Maternity In Law
Title: Smt. Bhauri Devi v Mahendra Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 58
While terming it a “rarest of rare cases” where the mother was denying a child to be her's, Rajasthan High Court directed a 93 year old woman to undergo DNA test, to determine maternity of the petitioner who was claiming share in her father's ancestral property.
The bench of Justice Bipin Gupta expressed astonishment over the situation, and referred to the provisions under Indian Evidence Act, and BSA 2023, that provided for presumption regarding a child's paternity if born during subsistence of marriage or within 280 days of its dissolution.
The Court held that the legislature never contemplated a scenario where a female might also deny a child to be hers. In such a situation, where there was no legislative presumption regarding maternity, it was held that maternity could be conclusively determined through DNA testing.
Title: Dekaran Singh v Pyare Lal & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 59
The Rajasthan High Court has enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to a claimant under the head of mental agony from Rs. 13,000 to Rs. 50,000 taking into account the duration for which the petitioner had to be hospitalized followed by his 6 months leave from work.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that pain and suffering qualified as non-pecuniary loss, as these were not capable of being arithmetically calculated. Hence, when the compensation had to be awarded under the head of pain and sufferings, special circumstances of the claimant had to be taken into account like his/her age, unusual deprivation, etc.
“A person not only suffers injuries on account of accident but also suffers in mind and body on account of the accident throughout his life and a feeling is developed that he is no more a normal man and cannot enjoy the amenities of life as another normal person can. While fixing compensation for pain and suffering as also for loss of amenities of life, features like his age, marital status and unusual deprivation he has undertaken in his life have to be reckoned.”
Title: Mohan Singh v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 60
While hearing the petition moved by a retired employee of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation aggrieved due to non-payment of dues against weekly rest for almost 13 years, Rajasthan High Court observed that any rightful claim of workman could not be denied on the ground that RSRTC did not have sufficient funds.
The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain held that RSRTC might be facing financial difficulties due to mismanagement or poor management, however that had nothing to do with the right and claim of any workman.
“The drivers, conductors, support and mechanical staff are the backbone of RSRTC, responsible for maintaining public transport system, therefore, merely because roadways is facing a financial difficulty, it may (not) avoid to comply settlement award arrived in present case.”
BDS Degree Not Equivalent To 'Degree In Medicine' For Food Safety Officer Post: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Arvind Kumar Gupta v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 61
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a petition filed by an aspirant for the post of Food Safety Officer, opining that the issue regarding equivalence of a bachelor's degree in Dental Surgery (BDS) to a degree in Medicine was already answered in negative by an expert committee, and hence, there was no scope of interference by the Court in the same.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma further held that the Court anyways did not have the liberty to interfere with the eligibility criteria for a post, in a manner that resulted in revising or modifying the criteria prescribed by the State as the recruiting authority.
Legal Heirs Succeed As Joint Tenants, Not Co-Tenants: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Eviction Decree
Title: Smt. Chaya Sethi & Ors. v Jitendra Bohra & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 62
While dismissing a petition moved by successors of a co-tenant challenging execution of an eviction decree, the Rajasthan High Court held that upon death of the original tenant, legal heirs did not acquire separate or independent tenancy rights. Rather, they stepped into the shoes of the deceased tenant, and succeeded the tenancy as joint tenants.
The bench of Justice Bipin Gupta further observed that unlike co-tenants, joint tenants had collective rights, representing single tenancy. And in such tenancies, service of notice or eviction proceedings against one joint tenant was sufficient to bind all joint tenant, without the need for individual impleadment of all such joint tenants in the proceedings.
Title: Jai Kishan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 63
The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that a second revision petition is not maintainable and mere clever drafting or change in nomenclature at the time of filing can't circumvent the law.
Justice Farjand Ali remarked, "The transformation in procedural attire cannot alter the juridical character of the proceedings...The true nature of a proceeding is to be determined by the essence of the relief claimed and not by the nomenclatural device adopted by the litigant."
The Court stated that even though the nomenclature used for filing the proceedings was not that of criminal revision, in essence, the petition sought reconsideration of the very order which had already been subjected to revisional scrutiny by the additional sessions judge. There was no change in the substance.
Title: Himmat Singh Gehlot v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 64
While taking judicial notice of large-scale encroachments, including religious structures, within the Right of Way (ROW) of National Highway across Rajasthan, the High Court has directed their removal or suitable relocation within a period of 2 months.
The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Shah observed that the lack of inter-department coordination while granting of permission, licenses and utility connections in isolation, without reference to Highway Control lines, building lines, road land boundaries etc, have resulted in creation of hazardous access points.
“…State-wide pattern of illegal occupation of Highway land within the ROW, posing a direct threat to human life and offending the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Title: Smt. Meena Devi & Ors. v Rahul Haldiya & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 65
The Rajasthan High Court recently flagged the difficulties faced by young, first generation advocates and directed creation of a Junior Advocates Welfare Fund to facilitate purchase of law books by junior advocates of less than 28 years of age, having a practice of 1-5 years.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the first generation young lawyers had no support to establish their practice, and no resources to purchase the necessary law books. It was stated that many such advocates were dependent on their families even after starting their practice, and some even leave the profession due to financial pressure.
The Court opined that welfare schemes were important for such advocates, like health support, accident help, and emergency funds that could protect them during difficult times.
Title: Mahaveer v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 66
While allowing the application of a rape convict to be shifted open air camp, Rajasthan High Court held that even though such transfer was not a matter of right, it could not be denied by applying a straight jacket formula of solely relying on the nature of offence, without considering other relevant factors.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the embargo created under the Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (“Rules”) was not absolute or did not impose a blanket prohibition. Rather, it vested discretion with the competent authorities.
Title: M.r. College of Physiotherapy
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 67
While opining the conduct of the department to be reflective of “deliberate non-compliance” and “absolute disregard and disrespect”, towards the Court's orders, Rajasthan High Court directed the Principle Secretary, Medical and Health, to be present before the Court, physically or via video conferencing, and file a personal affidavit regarding the delay in compliance.
The bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit was hearing a petition filed by a college aggrieved from inaction on part of the State towards the petitioner's application for NOC for establishment of a Physiotherapy institution.
The Court observed, “This is not a standalone instance. In several other matters, where similar directions were issued by this Court to place on record inspection reports of institutions, respondent Department, has failed to comply with the same, which indicates flaws, non-transparency, and lack of accountability on the part of Respondent Department.”.
Title: Aryaman Nursing College v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 68
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petitions filed by newly established nursing colleges, seeking participation in the counselling process for 2025-26 academic session, in light of the fact that the requisite NOC and statutory recognition were obtained by such colleges after the counselling process was concluded and the academic session had progressed substantially.
The bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati held that allowing extension of timelines, or announcing another round of counselling, would disturb the academic schedule and compromise educational standards. It was opined that approvals only allowed the institutions to get established without creating any right to student allotment once the counselling was over.
At the same time, in the interest of orderly administration, the Court issued prospective directions to the effect that for the next academic session, applications of bona-fide institutions seeking NOC for participation in counselling process, shall be considered atleast 45 days prior to commencement of first round of counselling.
Title: Rakesh Kumar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 69
The Rajasthan High Court has held that in cases where the permissible democratic limits to peaceful protests are crossed by the protestors, resulting in acts like climbing on the overhead tanks, police has the right to recover additional expenses from such protestors, incurred for maintaining law and order.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali was hearing a matter concerning the charges related to deployment of additional police force when one of the petitioners climbed an overhead water tank during the protest. It observed,
“peaceful agitation or protest against any perceived civil wrong or against a decision of the Government, if carried out in a democratic and lawful manner and subject to reasonable restraints, forms an integral part of a democratic set up, and ordinarily no recovery of expenses should be fastened upon the protestors for such lawful and peaceful demonstration. At the same time, any act exceeding the permissible democratic limits, including the act of climbing upon an overhead tank with an element of threat to public order or safety, may legitimately invite recovery of expenses incurred for maintaining law and order.”
Title: Fateh Mohammad v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 70
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition challenging notice sent by Shri Devasthan Board, maintaining Shri Sarneshwar Mahadev Temple, to the petitioner to evict him from his 40 year-old shop structure in the close vicinity of the temple, observing that the petitioner was an encroacher.
The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur held that the Board was well within its right to initiate proceedings against the petition for removal of encroachment from the temple property for the benefit of the devotees, who otherwise face inconvenience.
Title: Smt. Kanta Kumawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 71
Rajasthan High Court upheld the State's order to deny wife's RTI application seeking details of salary paid to the husband who was employed with the concerned department, opining that information relating to performance of an employee or officer in an organization fell within “personal information”.
The petitioner had filed an RTI application with the concerned department seeking copies of pay slips/details of salary paid to her husband who was an employee of the department, for a particular time period.
Title: Sunil v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 72
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the transfer of an undertrial from one jail to another which was 800-1000 Kms away from his residential town, opining that such transfer imposed an unreasonable and onerous burden on his family members by compelling them to travel such a long distance to meet him.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that compelling the petitioner's family to travel such a distance, without assigning any reason for such transfer, was wholly impracticable and unjust. Hence, the order was held to be unsustainable in law.
Title: Atal Khandelwal v Institute of Health Management Research
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 73
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a writ petition filed against Indian Institute of Health Management Research, filed by its employee against his termination order, opining that the challenged order arose out of a service relationship between the parties, which is private in nature. Since there was no public law element, a writ petition is not maintainable.
The bench of Justice Praveer Bhatnagar referred to certain Supreme Court judgments, that held that while a body may be discharging public duty, and be subject to judicial review by courts, its employees did not have right to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226, since the matter related to service which was not governed or controlled by statutory provisions.
Title: Smt. Imrawati Devi & Ors. v Ramveer & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 74
The Rajasthan High Court has enhanced the compensation from around Rs. 50 Lakhs to Rs. 78 Lakhs in favour of the family of a 23-year old final year MBBS student who passed away in an accident in the year 2015.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand referred to the Supreme Court case of Bishnupriya Panda v. Basanti Manjari Mohanty & Anr. that dealt with an identical factual situation, and considered the notional income of the deceased, coupled with the future prospects, to be Rs. 50,000 per month.
Title: Smt. Khushboo v Manohar
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 75
While allowing dissolution of marriage, Rajasthan High Court held that the husband's conduct of total abandonment of legal proceedings, deliberate violations of judicial directions, and persistent non-payment of court-ordered maintenance, amounted to sustained mental cruelty, making it impossible for the wife to reasonably be expected to live with the husband.
The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit observed that deliberate and intentional abandonment by the husband of both his matrimonial obligations as well as legal obligations amounted to a forfeiture of his right to contest the matter.
Title: Health and Education Care Society v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 76
While rapping the State for “gross inaction” in issuing NOC even after 8 months of inspection, Rajasthan High Court held that such lapse in processing a routine clearance revealed a callous disregard for public interest and slackness in discharge of public duties.
Expressing displeasure and surprise over such inaction, the bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit observed that such lapses compelled entities to approach courts for writ of mandamus, thereby perpetuating a vicious cycle of litigation, extracting multiple round of compliance from institutions while the executive remained unreactive.
“The authorities' high-handedness in sitting over NOC applications despite favourable inspection report, as exemplified in the present case, not only undermines the rule of law but transforms this Court into an unwilling de facto regulator of the process of grant of NOC.”
Title: Govaram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 77
The Rajasthan High Court has held that possibility of inter-se tensions between the parties or a perceived threat could not, by itself, be a determinative factor for denying parole, especially when the applicant's conduct in jail was reported to be satisfactory.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that maintenance of law and order is a continuous obligation of the State and such concerns could be addressed by imposing suitable conditions on the applicant during the parole period.
Title: Soma v State
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 78
The Rajasthan High Court has acquitted a man convicted for his wife's murder by setting her on fire, in light of the fact that there was no medical endorsement on the dying declaration certifying that the deceased was conscious, oriented and in a mentally fit state to make a statement.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma further observed that no records of pulse rate, blood pressure or extent of burns, at the relevant time, was produced, neither the declaration was recorded or certified by any executive or judicial magistrate despite their offices being located just 500 feet away.
“…a dying declaration, if found to be voluntary, truthful and recorded in a fit state of mind, can form the sole basis of conviction. However, the converse is equally true: where the dying declaration is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, lacks procedural safeguards and is not free from doubt, it would be unsafe to place implicit reliance upon it.”
Title: Roop Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 79
Rajasthan High Court has said that appellate court's discretion to grant suspension of sentence must be exercised with greater circumspection in cases where it is satisfied that the criminal appeal is not likely to be heard in near future, for the reason that if the appeal ultimately succeeds the imprisonment undergone can't be reversed.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that in the High Court thousands of criminal appeals remained pending for 20-30 years, with no likelihood of early hearing. It said
"In the High Court, thousands of criminal appeals have remained pending for the last 20–30 years, including jail appeals, where even the likelihood of early hearing does not appear forthcoming. In such matters, instead of taking an irreversible risk, the court must proceed on the safer side by placing paramount importance on human dignity and personal liberty".