Appeal dismissed. The High Court found no error warranting interference in the impugned order dismissing the appellant's challenge to the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and District Collector regarding land disputes and the appellant's status as a trespasser.
The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.
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.
SAW - 1 3 9 6 / 1 4
( 1 )
I n The Hi gh Cour t of Judi cat ur e f or Raj ast han Jai pur Bench, Jai pur O R D E R D. B. Ci vi l Speci al Appeal ( Wr i t ) No. 1396/ 2014 Dat e : 11/ 12/ 2014
Hon' bl e Mr . Just i ce Aj ay Rast ogi Hon' bl e Mr . Just i ce J. K. Ranka
Mr . Bhanu Par eek Adv. , f or appel l ant .
I nst ant pet i t i on has been f i l ed agai nst or der of t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge dt . 05. 08. 2014.
The f act s whi ch can be not i ced f r om t he r ecor d and r el evant f or our consi der at i on ar e t hat t he agr i cul t ur al l and bear i ng khasr a no. 4564 ( new khasr a no. 8224, 8225 & 8226) measur i ng 4 bi ghas & 10 bi swas si t uat ed near by t he bus- st and of Chavand Ka Mand at Ramgar h Road, Jai pur f or whi ch t he appel l ant was cl ai mi ng t o be a cul t i vat or and i n physi cal possessi on and al l eged t hat at one poi nt of t i me hi s l at e f at her Jeevan Ram bei ng i n possessi on of t he subj ect l and even pr i or t o t he year 1966 and when cer t ai n r epai r wor k was st ar t ed over t he subj ect l and i n quest i on i n t he year 1981, a not i ce u/ S 91 of t he Raj ast han Land Revenue Act was i ssued by t he Tehsi l dar , Amer and af t er t he r epl y was submi t t ed by f at her of t he appel l ant t he aut hor i t y passed or der on 26. 10. 1981 pur suant t o whi ch penal t y & char ges wer e deposi t ed. However , t he appel l ant appr oached t o t he JDA t r i bunal and af t er hear i ng t he par t i es on a r ef er ence appl i cat i on hol di ng t he appel l ant t o be encr oacher over t he subj ect l and f i nal l y di smi ssed t he r ef er ence vi de or der dt . 09. 10. 1995 whi ch was t he subj ect mat t er of chal l enge by f i l i ng of a wr i t pet i t i on bef or e t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge of t hi s
SAW - 1 3 9 6 / 1 4
( 2 )
Cour t bear i ng no. 360/ 1996 and t hat t oo was di sposed of vi de or der dt . 22. 01. 1997 wi t h di r ect i on t o t he appel l ant t o move appl i cat i on t o t he Di st r i ct Col l ect or , Jai pur who shal l di spose of t he appl i cat i on wi t hi n t he t i me bound f r amewor k f i xed and pendi ng deci si on of t he Di st r i ct Col l ect or he shoul d not be di st ur bed f r om t he peacef ul possessi on of t he sui t pr oper t y i n quest i on.
I t has come on r ecor d t hat i n t er ms of t he di r ect i ons of t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge whi l e di sposi ng of t he wr i t pet i t i on ear l i er pr ef er r ed by t he appel l ant bear i ng CWP- 360/ 1996 vi de or der dt . 22. 01. 1997, t he appel l ant appr oached t o t he Di st r i ct Col l ect or on hi s appl i cat i on and t he Di st r i ct Col l ect or di sposed of t he mat t er vi de or der dt . 14. 06. 2005 & obser ved t hat t he sui t pr oper t y i n quest i on i s bei ng mut at ed i n t he name of Jai pur Devel opment Aut hor i t y and Di st r i ct Col l ect or i s not compet ent t o r egul ar i ze t he subj ect l and as pr ayed f or by t he appel l ant and no act i on was t aken by t he appel l ant agai nst t he or der dt . 14. 06. 2005 and i n t he year 2014 t he wr i t pet i t i on came t o be pr ef er r ed bef or e t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge bear i ng no. 8388/ 2014 and i t was pr ayed t hat t he r espondent s- 1 & 3 may be di r ect ed t o pass or der s f or conver si on of t he subj ect l and i n quest i on and dur i ng pendency of t he appl i cat i on he shoul d not be di spossessed and t her e shoul d not be any demol i t i on of t hei r houses & shops et c.
The l ear ned Si ngl e Judge af t er hear i ng t he appel l ant and t aki ng not e of t he or der passed by t he
SAW - 1 3 9 6 / 1 4
( 3 )
Di st r i ct Col l ect or way back on 14. 06. 2005 ar r i ved t o t he concl usi on t hat t he as per f i ndi ng of t he t r i bunal r egar di ng st at us of t he appel l ant on t he r ef er ence i n r egar d t o t he sui t pr oper t y i n quest i on he was t r espasser and l i ber t y was gr ant ed t o f i l e appl i cat i on bef or e t he Di st r i ct Col l ect or who t oo has r ej ect ed way back on 14. 06. 2005 and t aki ng not e t her eof what i s bei ng pr ayed f or conver si on of t he subj ect l and i n quest i on may not ar i se t hat t oo under wr i t pet i t i on f i l ed u/ Ar t . 226 of t he Const i t ut i on of I ndi a.
We have hear d counsel f or appel l ant and do not f i nd any er r or bei ng commi t t ed by t he l ear ned Si ngl e Judge i n passi ng or der i mpugned whi ch may r equi r e i nt er f er ence by t hi s Cour t .
Consequent l y, t he appeal i s devoi d of mer i t and accor di ngl y di smi ssed.
( J. K. Ranka) , J. ( Aj ay Rast ogi ) , J.
VS/ -
Certificate - All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed/ Vijay Singh Shekhawat/ PAJW
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned order dismissing the appeal against the District Collector and Single Judge orders.
Whether there was any error committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the order which requires interference by this Court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhanu Pareek Adv.
Respondents
Ajay Rastogi
J. K. Ranka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
