Dismissed

Gajanand Sharma v. Union of India and Anr.

Rajasthan HC14 Oct 2017CW/16634/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Railway's failure to provide access to the petitioner's field due to railway construction. The Court held that the Railway lacks the authority to open new passages and directed the petitioners to approach civil revenue authorities under Sections 251 and 251A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, with a direction for decision within six months. The petition was dismi

What did the court decide?

Liberty to approach revenue authorities under Sections 251 and 251A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, with a direction for decision within six months.

Gajanand Sharma Vs Union of India and Anr. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16634 / 2017

¶3

1- xtkuUn 'kekZ iq= Jh pkSFkey 'kekZ

¶4

2- ?ku’;ke 'kekZ iq= Jh pkSFkey 'kekZ

¶5

fuoklh&fd’kuiqjk rglhy ykylksV ftyk nkSlk

¶6

----------izkFkhZx.k

¶7

cuke

¶8

1- Hkkjr l a ?k] tfj;s egkizcU/kd] mRrj if’pe jsYos a ] tokgj lfdZy] txriqjk] t;iqjA

¶9

2- e.My jsy izcU/kd] mRrj if’pe jsYo s a ] ikoj gkÅl jksM] jsYos a LVs’ku] t;iqjA

¶10

vizkFkhZx.k

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.KC Sharma

¶12

For Respondent(s) :

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDARI

¶14

Order

¶15

14/10/2017

¶16

It is stated that due to construction of underpass by the Railways, the access to the field does not exist thus the respondent Railway may be directed to provide alternate way to the petitioner for access to their field.

¶17

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record.

¶18

If the petitioners are not having any passage or way to their field, they can very well make an application under Section 251A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short “the Act of 1955”) for opening new way. No such application has been

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

[CW-16634/2017]

¶21

submitted before the competent authority.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to refer any provision, under which, the Railway need to provide passage because it is to be in the land governed by the revenue laws. If the way already exists then for opening it, the application under Section 251 of the Act of 1955 is maintainable and, otherwise, for new way, the application is to be under Section 251A of the Act of 1955. The Railway does not have authority to exercise the powers, as otherwise provided to the revenue authorities.

¶23

In view of the above, while dismissing this writ petition, the petitioners are given liberty to approach the revenue authorities for the prayer made herein. If an application is filed before the revenue authorities under Section 251 or 251A of the Act of 1955, they would be expected to decide it expeditiously and, if possible, then within a period of six months from the date of its receipt along with copy of this order.

¶24

(MN BHANDARI) J.

¶25

Preeti, PA/83

Gajanand Sharma v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajanand Sharma v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kumar Vs State of Raj and Anr.

State/Distt Collector Bharatpur and Othe Vs Shyam Babu and Others

Smt Nisha Sharma Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Banti@Gajendra Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Kamal Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Babulal and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp