Dismissed

Badri Lal Jaat Son of Chithar Jaat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Aug 2021CW/1199/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking removal of unauthorized encroachments on a village pond area. The High Court held that factual aspects cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction and marked facts irrelevant without proper inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Disallowed prayer for removal of encroachment and restoration of pond area on the ground that factual disputes regarding encroachment are not examinable in writ jurisdiction and should be pursued unde

Badri Lal Jaat Son of Chithar Jaat Vs State of Rajasthan — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1199/2021

¶3

Badri Lal Jaat Son Of Chithar Jaat, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Village Choti Gehlod, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

¶4

Shankar Lal Choudhary Son Of Babura Jaat, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Village Choti Gehlod, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

¶5

Jeetram Jaat Son Of Uddalal Jaat, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Choti Gehlod, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

¶6

Bheru Jaat Son Of Ramchandra, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Village Choti Gehlod, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

¶7

Hanuman Jaat Son Of Gopi Jaat, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Village Choti Gehlod, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

¶8

Girraj Son Of Rameevan, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Village Choti Gehlod, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

¶9

Vedaram Son Of Laadulal, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Village Choti Gehlod, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

¶10

Ramras Choudhary Son Of Jagdish, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Village Choti Gehlod, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

¶11

Kaluram Jaat Son Of Baaluram, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Village Choti Gehlod, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

¶12

Ramlal Son Of Laxminarayan, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Village Choti Gehlod, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

¶13

Hanuman Son Of Laxminaryan, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village Choti Gehlod, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

¶14

Radhakishan Son Of Ramkaran, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Village Choti Gehlod, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

¶15

Ghanshyam Jangid Son Of Unkaar, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village Choti Gehlod, Tehsil Peeplu, District

¶16

(2 of 3) [CW-1199/2021]

¶17

Tonk

¶18

Jagdish Son Of Prahlaad, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Choti Gehlod, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

¶19

Sukhlal Son Of Laxminaryan, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Village Choti Gehlod, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

¶20

Uddalal Son Of Ladulaal, Aged About 74 Years, Resident Of Village Choti Gehlod, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

¶21

Prakash Son Of Ramkaran, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Village Choti Gehlod, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

¶22

Satyanarayan Son Of Badhakishan, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Choti Gehlod, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

¶23

Pokhar Lal Son Of Chithar Jaat, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of Village Choti Gehlod, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

¶24

Shankar Prajapat Son Of Chithar, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village Choti Gehlod, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk

¶25

----Petitioners

¶26

Versus

¶27

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶28

District Collector, Tonk.

¶29

Tehsildar, Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk.

¶30

Ram Sahay Son Of Nanu Lal Jat, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Gram Chotti Gehlod, Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk

¶31

Ganga Ram Son Of Nanu Lal Jat, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Gram Chotti Gehlod, Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk

¶32

Ram Awatar Son Of Nanu Lal Jat, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Gram Chotti Gehlod, Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk

¶33

----Respondents

¶34

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Abhishek Pareek
For Respondent(s)	:

¶35

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

(3 of 3)

[CW-1199/2021]

Order

02/08/2021

The petitioners by way of this writ petition have prayed as

¶41

under:-

¶42

“It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction and in the nature thereof, the Hon’ble Court may kindly:

¶43

I) Call for the entire record pertaining to the case and after examining the same the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the revenue authorities to remove the encroachment and restore encroachment area of village pond and make sure that no further encroachment is made in future. II) Any other order or direction which may be deemed fit to the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be pleased in favour of the petitioner.

¶44

III) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

¶45

Several photographs have been attached by learned counsel for the petitioners and it is submitted that encroachments are being done on the area which is meant for pond.

¶46

This court is of the firm view that in writ jurisdiction factual aspects cannot be examined nor factual findings can be arrived at. More so, only on the basis of photographs, it cannot be assessed that there is an encroachment on the pond area. Revenue laws lay down specific forum for raising such grievance.

¶47

Allowing the petitioners to take up the matter under the concerned laws, the present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶48

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶49

Karan/41

Badri Lal Jaat Son of Chithar Jaat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badri Lal Jaat Son of Chithar Jaat v. State of Rajasthan

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

Govind Singh and Anr. Vs State Panchayati Raj Ors.

Manish Rav @ Chiku Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash @ Bhaga Ram Vs State of Rajasthan-State

Raj Kapoor S/O Hari Singh Vs Chiddhi Alias Chiddu Singh S/O Sheoli

Revant Ram Moond Filling Station Vs Principal Secretary, PWD

Bholaram Son of Ganpat Vs Sitaram