Dismissed

Nathu Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC9 Nov 2017CW/14454/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed this writ petition declaring it premature. The Court held that the Gram Panchayat had only issued notices and awaited a final decision after considering the petitioner's reply, making judicial intervention inappropriate at this stage.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and stay petition were dismissed as premature pending the final decision by the Gram Panchayat.

Nathu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14454 / 2017

¶3

Nathu Lal S/o Late Shri Kalu Lal Paliwal, Aged About 62 Years, Resident of Brahmpuri, Khamnore, Tehsil Khamnore, District Rajsamand (Rajasthan).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan, Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, District Jaipur (Raj.).

¶7

The District Collector, Rajsamand, District Rajsamand (Raj.).

¶8

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand (Raj.).

¶9

The Tehsildar, Khamnore, Tehsil Khamnore, District Rajsamand (Raj.), and

¶10

The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Tehsil Khamnore, District Rajsamand (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chaitanya Gehlot

¶13

Mr. B.S. Sodha

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶15

Judgment / Order

¶16

09/11/2017

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a similar writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13709/2017 (Shankar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 01.11.2017.

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-14454/2017]

¶20

The order dated 01.11.2017 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13709/2017 (Shankar Lal Vs. State of

¶21

Rajasthan & Ors.) is reproduce hereunder:-

¶22

“The petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved with the general notice dated 16.02.2017 and the individual notices dated 05.09.2017 and 14.09.2017 issued by the Gram Panchayat Khamnore, Panchayat Samiti Khamnore, District Rajsamand.

¶23

Vide these notices, the Gram Panchayat Khamnore has directed the petitioner and other persons to remove their encroachments from the Panchayat land.

¶24

The petitioner is claiming that she has not made any encroachment over any land belonging to Gram Panchayat Khamnore and she has raised construction over the land belonging to her, for which the Gram Panchayat Khamnore has issued a patta way back in the year 1975 in favour of her.

¶25

The Gram Panchayat Khamnore has issued notice to the petitioner on 14.09.2017 directing her to remove alleged encroachment made by her on the land belonging to Panchayat Samiti Khamnore. As per the petitioner, she has already filed her detailed reply in response to the said notice of the Gram Panchayat Khamnore. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to inform this Court that whether the Gram Panchayat Khamnore has taken any final decision in the matter or not.

¶26

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Gram Panchayat Khamnore has simply issued notice to the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment made by her over the land belonging to Panchayat and the petitioner has filed her reply to the said notice refuting the claim of the Gram Panchayat Khamnore. Till date the Gram Panchayat Khamnore has not taken any final decision in the matter and, therefore, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is premature.

¶27

Needless to say that the Gram Panchayat Khamnore

¶28

(3 of 3)

¶29

[CW-14454/2017]

¶30

will take final decision in the matter after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner to the notice dated 14.09.2017. If the petitoiner is aggrieved by the said decision she has a remedy to prefer an appeal before the Panchayat Samiti concerned as per Section 61 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.

¶31

In view of the above discussions, I don’t find any merit in this writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed.

¶32

Stay petition also stands dismissed.”

¶33

In view of the above, this writ petition is also dismissed accordingly.

¶34

Stay petition also stands dismissed.

¶35

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

¶36

Abhishek Kumar S.No.167

Nathu Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nathu Lal v. State of Rajasthan 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

Mukesh Vs State

Raj. State Indu. Deve. and Inve. Corp. Ltd. Vs State Industrial and Ors.

Raj. State Indu. Deve. and Inve. Corp. Ltd. Vs State Industrial and Ors.

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt. Pushpa Rani Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mohan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.