Dismissed

Agarwal Dharamshala, Chhani Badi v. Mahaveer and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 Oct 2018WMAP/2/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed an application for clarification of an order dated 08.08.2017. The court held that the order merely directed revenue authorities to take action on unauthorized encroachments and did not decide factual rights. The substantive claim regarding lawful possession of land under pattas was designated for a separate, substantive writ petition filed by the applicant. T

What the court decided

AI extract

Agarwal Dharamshala, Chhani Badi Vs Mahaveer and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Writ Misc. Application No. 2/2018

¶3

Agarwal Dharamshala, Chhani Badi, Tehsil-Bhadra, DistrictHanumangarh. Through Its Chairman Bhagirathmal Goyal son of Shri Jugal Kishore Goyal, aged about 80 years, Resident Of Village- Chhani Badi, Tehsil Bhadra, District- Hanumangarh.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mahaveer S/o Shri Moman Ram, aged about 70 years, By Caste Jat Kulariya, Resident Of Chhani Badi, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

¶7

Bheem Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh, aged about 36 years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Chhani Badi, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

¶8

Ishwar Singh S/o Shri Ladu Ram, aged about 28 years, By Caste Nayak, Resident Of W.no.13, Chhani Badi, Tehsil Bhadra District Hanumangarh.

¶9

Ishwar Singh S/o Shri Ramswaroop, about 42 years, By Caste Mehala, Resident Of Chhani Badi, Tehsil Bhadra District Hanumangarh.

¶10

Devi Lal S/o Shri Kesha Ram, about 45 years, Resident Of Chhani Badi, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

¶11

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Collector, Hanumangarh.

¶12

S.D.M., Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

¶13

Nayab Tehsildar, Chhani Badi, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari For Respondent(s) : ---

¶16

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

(2 of 2)

[WMAP-2/2018]

Order

05/10/2018

Writ Misc. Application No.2/2018:

¶22

The applicant has filed a writ petition on the same pleadings which have been made in the application. Suffice it to state that the order dated 08.08.2017 in respect of which clarification is sought does not decide any fact either in favour of the writ petitioners or against the applicant. The order only directs the revenue authorities to take cognizance of unauthorized encroachments on the subject lands forming part of the pleadings in the writ petition and take action as per law.

¶23

It is the claim of the applicant that it is in lawful possession of the land for which pattas have been issued in its favour on 22.11.1981, 07.07.1985 & 20.09.1999.

¶24

Since this issue has been raised in a substantive writ petition filed by the applicant, we are of the opinion that no clarification of the order dated 08.08.2017 is required for the reason the order does not determine the right of any party.

¶25

The right of the applicant would be decided in the writ petition filed by the applicant.

¶26

The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶27

Application No.128/2018:

¶28

Disposed of as infructuous.

¶29

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶30

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ

¶31

Mohit Tak

Agarwal Dharamshala, Chhani Badi v. Mahaveer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Agarwal Dharamshala, Chhani Badi v. Mahaveer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Singh Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Smt. Kusum Purohit Vs State of Rajasthan

Food Corporation of India Vs Ladu Ram

Iqbal Khan Vs Labour Court, Jodhpur and Anr.

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Soma Ram

N. K. Singhvi Vs Union of India and Ors.