Disposed

Basti Ram and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC10 Jul 2017WMAP/87/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench clarified that its prior order under Article 226 was purely declaratory. It directed JDA not to mechanically remove encroachers but only those who have lost a pending litigations regarding land patta.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed with clarification: Respondents must not act mechanically and should allow eviction only after pending litigation regarding patta status becomes final and adverse to the occupant.

Basti Ram and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 87 / 2017

¶3

¶4

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2309/2017

¶5

Basti Ram S/o Late Shri Radma Ram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Main Road Anganwa, Post Officer Surpuria Via Mandor, Jodhpur (raj.)

¶6

Prema Ram S/o Shri Daloo Ram Suthar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Main Road Anganwa, Post Office Surpura Via Mandor, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Rajasthan Through Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Urban Development & Housing Department, Food Building, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

Jodhpur Development Authority, Through Secretary, Jodhpur.

¶11

Commissioner, Jodhpur Development Authroity, Jodhpur.

¶12

Gram Panchayat Anganwa Through Its Sarpanch, Anganwa

¶13

Collector, District Jodhpur, Jodhpur.

¶14

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur.

¶15

Assistant Engineer, Water Resources, Department (Sub Division-II), Jodhpur.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.2097/2017

¶18

¶19

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2309/2017

Basti Ram & Anr.

Petitioners

Versus

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶24

Respondents

¶25

Bhanwar Choudhary & Ors.

¶26

Applicants

¶27

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Mathur

¶28

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nikhil Dungawat

¶29

(2 of 3)

¶30

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶31

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶32

Order

¶33

10/07/2017

¶34

In Application No.2097/2017:

¶35

The application for impleadment is allowed.

¶36

In Application No.87/2017 for recalling the order

¶37

dated 03.04.2017:

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

The writ petition filed in Public Interest was disposed of by this Bench on April 03, 2017. Since the alleged encroachers were not impleaded as respondents, we have granted a declaratory relief. The declaratory relief was that if a patta is cancelled and the Pattedar has litigated and lost the battle till the last court, the shield of protection under the patta would not be available. Land being under the management and control of the Jodhpur Development Authority, direction issued was that encroachments will be removed save and except where a person is litigating in a court concerning the dispute whether the patta was rightly or wrongly granted.

¶40

The grievance of the applicants is that notwithstanding the revision filed by a party aggrieved against grant of patta to them, under the orders passed by the Division Bench action to remove the applicants from the pattas allotted to them has been initiated.

¶41

In reply, the writ petitioners have relied upon an order dated December 15, 2006 passed by the competent officer of the

¶42

(3 of 3)

¶43

Jodhpur Development Authority treating the pattas in favour of the applicants to be illegal.

¶44

It is not in dispute that the applicants have filed a civil suit concerning the pattas which is pending consideration before the court of competent jurisdiction.

¶45

In the order, review whereof is sought, the Division Bench has clearly recorded that the relief granted is declaratory, meaning thereby that only where issue of the status of the occupant of a land has attained finality could action for repossession taken.

¶46

This Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot decide disputed questions of fact which have to be decided by the authorities or courts of competent jurisdiction. The only declaration granted was as aforenoted.

¶47

The respondents would not act mechanically and would ensure that only such persons are evicted from lands under the control and management of Jodhpur Development Authority where litigation initiated by the persons concerned, if at all, has attained finality and is against the allottee.

¶48

The application stands disposed of clarifying as above.

¶49

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ.

¶50

zeeshan/

Basti Ram and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basti Ram and Anr. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Secretary,I.C.of Agricultural Rese.and Anr. Vs Ram Niwas and Anr.

Babu Lal Mali and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ravindra Kumar Pareek and Ors.

Maga Ram and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Jagdish Kumar Jeengar Vs Jalor Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Shri Sheetla Mataji Kaga Tirth Trust Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.