Dismissed

Gulab Singh v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC25 Jul 2017WRW/152/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition dismissed. The High Court held the challenge to the order deleting a deceased relative from the respondent array did not show an error apparent on the face of the record. The court refused to treat the petition as a request for rehearing or a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed as the impugned order did not suffer from error apparent on the face of the record.

Gulab Singh Vs State and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Writ Review No. 152 / 2016

¶3

Gulab Singh S/o Chandan Singh, Aged About 67 Years, Kotra, Tehsil- Shiv, District- Barmer

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶7

Sub Divisional Officer, Barmer

¶8

Tehsildar Shiv, District- Barmer

¶9

District Collector, Barmer

¶10

Gemar Singh Adopted S/o Nawal Singh, Kotra, Tehsil- Shiv, District- Barmer

¶11

Deleted

¶12

Manka Ram S/o Basta Ram, Village- Nimbasar, Tehsil- Shiv, District- Barmer

¶13

7/1. Smt. Buti Wd/o. Manka Ram

¶14

7/2. Prabhu Ram s/o Manka Ram

¶15

7/3. Madan s/o Manka Ram

¶16

7/4. Daram Ram s/o Manka Ram

¶17

7/5. Neta Ram s/o Manka Ram

¶18

All are R/o Nimbasar, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer

¶19

Dhora (since Deceased) through LRS , Since deceased through legal representatives-

¶20

8/1. Dhakhan Kanwar Wd/o Dhora, Village- Nimbasar, Tehsil- Shiv, District- Barmer

¶21

8/2. Kojraj Singh S/o Dhora, Village- Nimbasar, Tehsil- Shiv, District- Barmer

¶22

8/3. Ashok Singh S/o Dhora, Village- Nimbasar, Tehsil- Shiv, District- Barmer

¶23

8/4. Neemb Singh S/o Dhora, Village- Nimbasar, Tehsil- Shiv, District- Barmer

¶24

8/5. Kamal Singh S/o Dhora, Village- Nimbasar, Tehsil- Shiv, District- Barmer

¶25

(2 of 3)

¶26

[WRW-152/2016]

¶27

Pema Ram S/o Basta Ram, Village- Nimbasar, Tehsil- Shiv, District- Barmer

¶28

Chhagna Ram (Since Deceased) Through LRS , Since deceased through legal representatives-

¶29

10/1. Dana Ram S/o Chhagna Ram, Village- Nimbasar, TehsilShiv, District- Barmer

¶30

10/2. Bhoma Ram S/o Chhagna Ram, Village- Nimbasar, TehsilShiv, District- Barmer

¶31

10/3. Nepal Ram S/o Chhagna Ram, Village- Nimbasar, TehsilShiv, District- Barmer

¶32

10/4. Dheli W/o Chhagna Ram, Village- Nimbasar, Tehsil- Shiv, District- Barmer

¶33

----Respondents

¶34

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.L.Purohit, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajeev Purohit

¶35

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

¶36

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶37

Order

¶38

Per Hon’ble Mr.Sangeet Lodha,J.

¶39

25/07/2017

¶40

This review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of order dated 13.5.16 passed by a Bench of this court in D.B.C. Special Appeal (Writ) No.511/02, whereby a Special Appeal preferred by the petitioner herein questioning the legality of order dated 29.7.02 of the learned Single Judge of this court, stands dismissed.

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that brother of the petitioner-Hathu Singh, respondent no.5 in the writ

¶42

(3 of 3)

¶43

[WRW-152/2016]

¶44

petition, was not served, however, on the request being made by the writ petitioners, his name was ordered to be deleted from the array of the respondents by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.7.02. Learned counsel submitted that inadvertently before the learned Single Judge the stand was taken that legal representatives of Hathu Singh were not taken and therefore, the petition stood abated, whereas, Hathu Singh is still alive and therefore, there was no need of taking his legal representatives on record. It is submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the lands of Hathu Singh are also required to be acquired by the State Government and thus, in absence of the necessary party, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

¶45

A perusal of the order under review reveals that the contention raised by the appellant in this regard has already been dealt with appropriately by this court in detail. As a matter of fact, the present petition seeking review of the order passed by this court appears to have been filed for the purpose of rehearing and a fresh decision on the issue, which cannot be countenanced by this court.

¶46

In the considered opinion of this court, the order under review does not suffer from any error apparent so as to make entitle the petitioner to seek review thereof.

¶47

The review petition is therefore, dismissed.

¶48

(ARUN BHANSALI)J. (SANGEET LODHA)J.

¶49

Aditya/

Gulab Singh v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulab Singh v. State 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

Lrs of Faiz Mohammed Vs Lekhram and Ors.

Sawai Singh Rathore Vs Baroda Raj. Gramin Bank Bhilwara

Lakhpat Dhankani Vs Jodhpur Development Autho., and Ors.

Lrs of Babu Shekh Ramjan Vs Lrs of Hajjan Batul