Dismissed

Bhura @ Bhoor Singh Son of Girdhar v. Gram Panchayat

Rajasthan HC7 Feb 2020SAW/1185/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal filed by occupants of government land set apart for abadi. Bench dismissed intra-court appeal holding no case for interference against single judge's dismissal of writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Intra-court appeal dismissed in limine.

What the court decided

Bhura @ Bhoor Singh Son of Girdhar… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1185/2019

¶3

Bhura @ Bhoor Singh Son Of Girdhar, By Caste Gurjar, R/o Anijara, Tehsil Masalpur, District Karauli.

¶4

Gajraj Son Of Girdhar, By Caste Gurjar, R/o Anijara, Tehsil Masalpur, District Karauli.

¶5

Samay Singh Son Of Girraj, By Caste Gurjar, R/o Anijara, Tehsil Masalpur, District Karauli.

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Gram Panchayat, Masalpur, Through Sarpanch, Santosh Kumar Malhotra, Gram Panchayat Masalpur, Tehsil Masalpur, District Karauli.

¶9

Gram Panchayat, Through Secretary, Pravin Kumar Sharma, Gram Panchayat Masalpur, Tehsil Masalpur, District Karauli.

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Karauli.

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Masalpur, District Karauli.

¶12

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jiya Ur Rahman For Respondent(s) :

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

¶14

Order

¶15

07/02/2020

¶16

This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 16.7.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellants against the

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[SAW-1185/2019]

¶19

order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, setting aside the order dated 28.08.2017 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (`RAA’), Kota and restoring the order dated 26.6.2014 passed by the District Collector, Karuali, setting apart the land for expansion of Abadi, has been dismissed.

¶20

The facts in nutshell are that the District Collector, Karauli in exercise of powers conferred under Section 92 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short “the Act of 1956”), set apart the land measuring 20 bighas out of the land measuring 26.04 bighas comprising Khasra No. 717/1 and 15 bighas out of the land measuring 170.18 bighas comprising khasra No. 1414 situated in village Masalpur, for the purpose of expansion of Abadi. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants herein claiming to be in possession of the land in question, filed an appeal before the RAA, Kota.

¶21

After due consideration, the RAA found that since the appellants were in possession of the disputed land, before passing the order setting apart the land for expansion of Abadi, the District Collector was required to extend an opportunity of hearing to them and accordingly, while setting aside the order dated 26.6.2014 passed by the District Collector, the matter was remanded for decision afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

¶22

Aggrieved by the order dated 28.8.2017 passed by the RAA, Gram Panchayat, Masalpur preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 26.9.2018 and the order dated 28.8.2017 passed by the RAA was set aside and the order dated 26.6.2014 passed by District Collector was restored.

¶23

(3 of 4) [SAW-1185/2019]

¶24

The legality of the order passed by the Board of Revenue was challenged by the appellants before this Court by way of writ petition, which stands dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the order impugned. Hence this appeal.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants while reiterating the contentions raised before the learned Singe Judge, submitted that since the appellants are in occupation of the land in question set apart for abadi purposes, they were required to be extended an opportunity of hearing and thus, the Board of Revenue had seriously erred in setting aside the order dated 28.8.2017 passed by the RAA and restoring the order dated 26.6.2014 passed by the District Collector. However, it is not disputed by the learned counsel before this Court that the appellants have no title over the land in question and they are in unauthorised occupation thereof.

¶26

Indisputably, the disputed land is recorded in the revenue record as Government land and therefore, the District Collector was well within his jurisdiction in setting apart the land for Abadi purpose exercising the power under Section 92 of the Act of 1956. The appellants who are admittedly in unauthorised occupation of the land cannot raise any grievance against the order passed by the District Collector setting apart the land as aforesaid and therefore, they were not required to be extended an opportunity of hearing as claimed. Moreover, if the appellants are in possession of the disputed land, obviously, while taking the appropriate proceedings for their removal, the procedure as laid down under the law shall be followed by the authority concerned.

¶27

For the aforementioned reasons, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

[SAW-1185/2019]

¶30

No case for interference by us in intra court appeal jurisdiction is made out.

¶31

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

¶32

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶33

(SANGEET LODHA),J

¶34

BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77/99

Bhura @ Bhoor Singh Son of Girdhar v. Gram Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Bhura @ Bhoor Singh Son of Girdhar v. Gram Panchayat

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

The State of Rajasthan Vs Amit Kumar Jashwant Lal

The State of Rajasthan Vs Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Pvt. Ltd.

The State of Rajasthan Vs M/S Salman Arif Arif Ahmad

Smt. Suman Bala Sharma W/O Shri Ashutosh Vashishtha Vs Smt. Manju Rajpal

Ms v D Swami Andcompany Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Central Exciseandors

Vivek Jeph S/O Shri B.R. Meena Vs Union of India