Disposed

Virendra Singh v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC16 May 2019CW/8178/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of multiple writ petitions challenging the validity of land pattas issued by a Gram Panchayat for land avested by the Municipal Corporation. It directed the Corporation to consider fresh regularisation applications.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the Municipal Corporation to consider fresh applications for regularisation of the petitioners' possession within three months, subject to State Government ratification.

Virendra Singh Vs State and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8188/2016

Firoz Begum

----Petitioner

Versus

State And Ors
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8160/2016
Om Prakash Khatik
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8161/2016
Smt. Vishnu Devi Nagda
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8173/2016
Smt. Kaushal Devi
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8174/2016
Roshan Lal Bhat
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8178/2016
Virendra Singh

(2 of 7)

----Petitioner

Versus

State And Ors

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8180/2016

Bheru Singh

----Petitioner

Versus

State And Ors

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8182/2016

¶19

Amresh Singh Rajput

¶20

----Petitioner Versus ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8183/2016

¶21

State And Ors

¶22

Shankerlal Kumar

¶23

----Petitioner Versus ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8184/2016

¶24

State And Ors

¶25

Dinesh Chandar Garg

¶26

----Petitioner Versus

¶27

State And Ors

¶28

----Respondent

¶29

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8185/2016

Mukesh Khatik

----Petitioner

Versus

State And Ors

----Respondent

(3 of 7)

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8186/2016

Dalla

----Petitioner

Versus

State And Ors

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8187/2016

¶43

Gopal Kumhar

¶44

----Petitioner Versus State And Ors ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8189/2016 Balwant Singh Rathore ----Petitioner Versus State And Ors ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8190/2016 Kailash Chandar Teli ----Petitioner Versus State And Ors ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8191/2016 Hasina ----Petitioner Versus State And Ors

¶45

----Respondent

¶46

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8192/2016 Chanda Khatik

----Petitioner

Versus

(4 of 7)

State And Ors

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8193/2016

¶53

Suresh Chandra Khatik

----Petitioner

Versus

State And Ors

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8194/2016

¶59

Smt. Padma Meghwal
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8195/2016
Smt. Manju Devi
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8199/2016
Hemendra Khatik
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8201/2016
Navneetlal Paneri
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8202/2016
Smt. Sudharma

(5 of 7)

----Petitioner

Versus

State And Ors

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8203/2016

Suraj Kumar

----Petitioner

Versus

State And Ors

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12558/2016

¶72

Narayan Singh

¶73

State And Ors	----Petitioner Versus –--Respondents
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.BS Sandhu.
For Respondent(s)	: Ms.Rekha Borana, AAG. Mr.Anurag Shukla.

¶74

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶75

Judgment

¶76

16/05/2019

¶77

All these writ petitions involve common questions of facts and law and hence, are decided by this common judgment.

¶78

Brief facts of the case as noticed by this Court are that the petitioners are holding plots of land at Gram Panchayat Bedla. The petitioners were given pattas by Gram Panchayat in 1985 which did not stand the scrutiny of law and hence, the petitioners can at best be said to be having old possession or they are long time encroachers.

¶79

(6 of 7)

¶80

The claim of the State Government is that the land in question was already allotted to the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur in the year 1974 and once the title vests in the Municipal Corporation, the Gram Panchayat was not entitled to allot the land and issue patta and it is the Municipal Corporation alone which could decide the fate of the land. Learned AAG further submits that it is up to the Municipal Corporation whether to remove the encroachment or regularise the old possession.

¶81

Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation submits that though they have filed a reply that such regularisation of land is not possible but still he assures this Court that if fresh applications are made by the petitioners, they shall consider the same in light of prevailing Rules/Byelaws/Regulations/Circulars/ Notifications/Administrative Orders/Circulars or whatever is in vogue regarding regularisation of the land to which the petitioners are entitled to in lieu of being in old possession.

¶82

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on the aforementioned limited submission and after going through the material available on record, all these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent Municipal Corporation, Udaipur to consider the fresh applications made by the petitioners for regularisation in light of prevailing Rules/Byelaws/ Regulations/Circulars/Notifications/Administrative Orders/Circulars or whatever is in vogue regarding regularisation and decide the same strictly in accordance with law. Such decision shall be required to be ratified by the respondent no.1 State Government.

¶83

The petitioners shall move the application strictly within a period of 30 days from today. The respondent Municipal Corporation shall decide the same within a period of three months

¶84

(7 of 7)

¶85

thereafter. It is further made clear that the respondent Municipal Corporation shall consider only those applications of the petitioners who move the same within 30 days from today.

¶86

It is needless to say that until the respondents arrive at a decision, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners.

¶87

All the stay petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶88

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶89

90-114-SPhophaliya/-

Virendra Singh v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Baljeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Lrs of Lalit Narayan S/O Ram Pratap Tak (D) Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dhapu Devi Vs State

Bablu Singh @ Madhusudan Singh Vs State

Ravi Sain Vs State