Writ petition challenging eviction notices for illegally occupied government shops. Court held encroaching on government land causes no equity; appeal pending status does not grant right to hold illegal possession. Eviction orders upheld.
Eviction proceedings to be continued; writ petition dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9652/2020
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.P. Goyal, Senior Counsel, with
(2 of 5)
[CW-9652/2020]
Mr. Ravi Shankar Sharma
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
03/09/2020
The petitioners, by way of the present writ petition, have challenged the order dated 26.7.2019 passed by the Panchayat Samiti, Virat Nagar, Jaipur and also the order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the Additional District Collector, Kotputali, whereby the interim order passed earlier by it, was vacated and has also challenged consequential notice issued by the Panchayat Samiti, Maid dated 7.7.2020 & 04.08.2020 directing the petitioners to vacate the premises and the shops, which were found to be illegally occupied and encroached upon by them.
(3 of 5)
[CW-9652/2020]
the petitioners as encroachers on the land, which was a government land and had not been allotted to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners could be allotted the said shops also and therefore, the order passed by the Panchayat Samiti was challenged in the appeal before the Additional District Collector wherein the Additional District Collector vide its order dated 27.8.2019 had granted initially an ad-interim order in favour of the petitioners, but the same was vacated vide order dated 26.11.2019. Learned counsel further submits that the Additional District Collector has held on mere presumption that the petitioners have encroached upon the government land and therefore, the interim order was wrongly vacated. Learned counsel further submits that the appeal is still pending before the concerned Additional District Collector. While the said appeal is pending, notices have been issued by the Gram Panchayat on 07.07.2020 and 04.8.2020 for evicting the petitioners from the said land. Learned counsel submits that such action is illegal and unjustified and the petitioners ought to be allowed continuously to run their business at the shops at Khasra No.1820.
(4 of 5)
[CW-9652/2020]
title. Thus, they had encroached on the government land by constructing shops illegally. The Panchayat Samiti, therefore, ultimately took a decision on 26.7.2019 holding them as land encroachers and ranked trespassers and took a decision to evict them at the earliest. The said order was challenged before the Additional District Collector, who also reached to the conclusion after hearing both the parties that the petitioners are ranked trespassers and encroachers on the government land and has, therefore, the interim order passed earlier, vide its order dated 26.11.2019. The said order has now been challenged by the petitioners before this Court by filing the present writ petition when they realized that the Gram Panchayat has issued eviction orders in July, 2020 and 4.8.2020.
(5 of 5)
[CW-9652/2020]
did not challenge the order in further appeal before any authority and have only challenged the same now after nine months before this Court at the time when impugned notices were issued. Thus, merely because an appeal is pending, no right is created in favour of the petitioners to continue to hold possession illegally.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
SUNIL SOLANKI /19/67
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners can claim right to continue possession of government land despite being declared encroachers.
Whether the High Court must protect the petitioners because the appeal before the Additional District Collector is pending.
Pappu Ram Raiger S/o Shri Chander Raiger
Kalu Ram S/o Shri Chander Raiger
Balram@ Balraj S/o Shri Chander Raiger
Shiv Narayan @ Shiv Charan S/o Shri Revad Khatik
Rajesh Khinchi S/o Shri Omprakash Khatik
Sita Ram S/o Shri Babu Lal Khatik
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Sunil Solanki
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
