Dismissed

State of Raj. v. Pratap Singh Jagirdar and Ors.

Rajasthan HC7 May 2013CW/5250/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan assailing orders passed by Jagir Commissioner and Board of Revenue from 1959 to 1962. The Court noted the matter had already been decided in a prior Division Bench judgment and an SLP, ordering dismissal by agreement of counsel.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed in the same terms as the earlier Division Bench judgment; no costs.

State of Raj. Vs Pratap Singh… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5250/2008 State of Rajasthan Vs. Pratap Singh Jagirdar through LR's

¶2

Order dt: 07/05/2013

¶3

1/4

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

ORDER

¶6

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5250/2008

¶7

State of Rajasthan Vs. Pratap Singh Jagirdar through LR's

¶8

Date of Order

¶9

th ::: 07 May 2013

¶10

PRESENT

¶11

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶12

Mr. Pradhuman Singh on behalf of Mr. Anand Purohit, Sr. Advocate & AAG for the State. Mr. D.S. Nimla, for the respondents.

¶13

1. Both the learned counsel for the parties state at bar that the controversy involved in the present writ petition, has already been

¶14

decided by a Division Bench of this Court in DBCW (PIL) Petition No.2253/2004-”Prayas” through its Director, Khemraj Choudhary

¶15

Vs. State & Ors. , decided on 05.02.2008 , in which the Division Bench of this Court has held as under: -

¶16

“We have carefully considered the arguments made by counsel for the parties and scanned the matter after going through the record.

¶17

The perusal for the relief claim demonstrates that the first relief is against the order passed by the Zagirdar Commissioner dated 22.10.1959 whereas as

¶18

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5250/2008 State of Rajasthan Vs. Pratap Singh Jagirdar through LR's

¶19

Order dt: 07/05/2013

¶20

2/4

¶21

per the Act of 1952, the said order is appealable. It is apart from the the fact that the petitioner has come with the allegation against the respondents No.3 and 4 to the effect that with their support respondent No.5 is collecting Mahooa produced, however, as per the report called by the Collector shows that on inquiry, none of the allegations were found correct. In the report also a reference of the order passed by the Zagirdar Commissioner dated 22.10.1959 is made and pursuant to the item No.11 to 34 of the order, the respondent No.5 was given authority to collect Mahooa produced. It is apart from the fact as to whether muscle men are used or not as alleged by the petitioner but denied by the respondent, is a question of fact which cannot be decided by this court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶22

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly, dismissed with no orders as to costs.”

¶23

2. Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. D.S. Nimla, further informed that against the judgment dated 05.02.2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner- “Prayas” (a registered NGO) preferred SLP being SLP No.11392/2010- Prayas (Regd. N.G.O.) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , which SLP also came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide the judgment and order dated 01.04.2011 .

¶24

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner- State, Mr. Pradhuman Singh, appearing for Mr. Anand Purohit, Sr. Advocate & AAG for the

¶25

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5250/2008 State of Rajasthan Vs. Pratap Singh Jagirdar through LR's

¶26

Order dt: 07/05/2013

¶27

3/4

¶28

petitioner State, therefore, fairly submitted that the present writ petition by way of which the petitioner- State has assailed the orders dated 20.10.1959 (Annex.1) passed by the Jagir Commissioner, 28.01.1961 (Annex.3) passed by the Jagir Commissioner; and the judgment dated 11.01.1962 (Annex.4) passed by the learned Board of Revenue, after so many years, is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

4. The prayer made in the present writ petition of the State read as under: -

¶30

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that your lordships may very graciously be pleased to admit/allow this writ petition and be further pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof:-

¶31

(i)Declaring the impugned orders dated 22.10.1959 (Annx.1) and 28.1.1961 (Annex.3) passed by the learned respondent No.2 to be illegal and unconstitutional and the same may kindly be quashed and set-aside;

¶32

(ii)quashing and setting aside the judgment dated 11.1.1962 (Annx.4) passed by the learned Board of Revenue Ajmer and allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner State;

¶33

(iii)It may be declared that the respondent No.1 has no right o get any flower and fruits of Mahuwa from the trees situated in the protected/reserved forest area;

¶34

(iv)any other appropriate writ, order or direction which

¶35

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5250/2008 State of Rajasthan Vs. Pratap Singh Jagirdar through LR's

¶36

Order dt: 07/05/2013

¶37

4/4

¶38

this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case including award of cost of this writ petition in favour of humble petitioner.”

¶39

5. Accordingly, in view of the agreement between the learned counsels for both the parties, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed in the same terms. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the revenue courts below forthwith.

¶40

( DR. VINEET KOTHARI ), J .

¶41

DJ/140

State of Raj. v. Pratap Singh Jagirdar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Raj. v. Pratap Singh Jagirdar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja Ram Vs Board of Revenue, Ajmer and Ors.

Sulzer Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Textiles Cess Appellate Tribunal

Mahadev Panchariya Vs State and Ors.

Ram Swaroop Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Executive Engineer, and Ors. Vs Shivnath Ram

Executive Engineer, and Ors. Vs Bhera Ram and Ors.