Court dismissed special appeal challenging Single Judge dismissal of writ petition regarding encroachment on public way; held civil and criminal remedies available under alternative remedy principle.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
{1} DB SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.1214/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
JUDGMENT
D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.1214/ 2013 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17592/ 2013
GHANSHYAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
DATE: 02.12.2013
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Mr. R.S. Bhardwaj, for the appellant. ****
BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE):
The instant appeal has been presented against the order dated 15.10.2013, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17592/ 2013, thereby dismissing the appellant's writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy available to him in law.
Heard Mr. R.S. Bhardwaj, the learned counsel for the
appellant.
The facts, in brief, necessary for the disposal of the instant
appeal, are that the appellant/ writ-petitioner is a resident of village Baj herakurd. He has averred that there is a public way, approximately 50 ft. wide comprised of Pakka and Kacha portions, passing through Weir to Bhusawar. The appellant/ writ-petitioner has his agricultural land in the vicinity thereof. He has alleged that the respondent Nos.7 to 11 have encroached over this public way, included in Khasra No.577 and have
{2} DB SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.1214/2013
grown their crops thereon, for which the villagers have been prevented from using the same, as done for several years in the past. The appellant/ writ-petitioner has further alleged that the encroachers also forcibly stopped him from raising his construction on his nearby land. According to the appellant/ writ-petitioner, inspite of several representations submitted by him before the different authorities including the District Collector, Bharatpur, Tehsildar, Weir and the SHO, Police Station Bhusawar, no effective steps for removal of the encroachments have yet been taken. This is also inspite of a report of the Patwari Halka, affirming the encroachment on the public way in Khasra No.577.
Learned counsel for the appellant/ writ-petitioner has argued that in this factual background, the learned Single Judge erred in declining to intervene on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.
The writ petition admittedly has not been filed espousing a public cause to initiate a public interest litigation on behalf of the villagers of Bajherakurd. As would be apparent from the averments made, an allegation of deprivation of the right of enjoyment of his (appellant/ writ-petitioner) adjacent land has been made. The dispute vis-a-vis the public way and pertaining to his land, as the learned Single Judge has rightly observed, can be resolved by resorting to remedies available under the civil and criminal law.
{3} DB SPECIAL APPEAL(WRIT) NO.1214/2013
In this view of the matter, we do not see any convincing
reason to intervene. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The stay application also stands closed.
The appellant/ writ-petitioner is left at liberty, to avail his remedy otherwise available in law.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J. (AMITAVA ROY),C.J.
/ KKC/
Certificate:
All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
KAMLESH KUMAR P.A.
Ghanshyam Sharma
State of Rajasthan
Amitava Roy
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
