The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the lease of Jaisamand Lake land to a private company. The court held that the issues were already adjudicated in a prior PIL (DBCWP no. 8142/2012) and addressed in the Collector's subsequent order, leaving no matter for consideration.
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 AT JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1948/2012
1.Bhagwan Puri son of Shri Ratan Puri, by caste Goswami, aged about 52 years, resident of Babamagara Jaisamand, TehsilSarada, District-Udaipur.
2.Ram Puri son of Shri Nand Puri, by caste Goswami, aged about 60 years, resident of Babamagara Jaisamand, Tehsil-Sarada, District-Udaipur.
3.Bhanvar Puri son of Shri Ratan Puri, by caste Goswami, aged about 52 years, resident of Babamagara Jaisamand, TehsilSarada, District-Udaipur.
4.Sambhu Puri son of Shri Lal Puri, by caste Goswami, aged about 43 years, resident of Babamagara Jaisamand, TehsilSarada, District-Udaipur.
5.Sumer Puri son of Shri Nand puri, by caste Goswami, aged about 51 years, resident of Babamagara Jaisamand, TehsilSarada, District-Udaipur.
6.Naval Puri son of Shri Lal Puri by caste Goswami, aged about 60 years, resident of Babamagara Jaisamand, Tehsil-Sarada, District-Udaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Rajasthan, Through the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2 The Collector, Udaipur
3 The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sarada, Tehsil-Sarada, DistrictUdaipur.
4 Silver Shadow Export Pvt. Ltd. C/o Alka Hotel, Shastri Circle, Alka Hotel Road, Udaipur. Through its Director.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vineet Dave.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
(2 of 5)
[CW-1948/2012]
Order
03/08/2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed with the following
reliefs:-
“i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to take appropriate steps to remove the encroachment made over the historical Jaisamand Lake. ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the directions may kindly be issued for safe guard of the historical Jaisamand Lake and further to demolish the illegal construction raised over the catchment area including mobile tower, mountain, hills, construction raised in contravention of terms and conditions of patta and to restore the catchment area and further to restore the natural position of mountain and hills of periphery of Jaisamand Lake.
iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the lease and patta issued in favour of the respondent private company may kindly be cancelled and further the respondent State authorities may kindly be restrained to further extend lease/patta in favour of the respondent private company and the respondent State authorities may kindly be restrained to transfer the area of aarazi No. 1 of Babamagara, Tehsil-Sarada, District-Udaipur by any mode to any other person.
iv) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent private company may kindly be restrained to raise construction over the government land and on the land of temple, tombs, and samadhies. v) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the directions may kindly be issued for safeguard of ancient monuments, temples, tombs and samadhies situated in periphery of Jaisamand Lake, Babamagara, Tehsil-Sarada, District-Udaipur.
vi) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the position with regard to aarazi No. 1 of Babamagara, Tehsil-Sarada, District-Udaipur may kindly be restored as at the time of settlement.
vii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.
viii) Writ Petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs.”
(3 of 5)
[CW-1948/2012]
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities have in gross violation granted the lease to the private respondent no. 4 and they are misusing the leased property.
A reply has been filed by the respondents including the private respondent. The learned counsel for the private respondent submits that in the identical facts, one petition being DBCWP no. 8142/2012 was filed by one Khyali Lal Suwalka and this Court has disposed of the same vide its judgment dated 13.04.2018, which reads as follows:-
“The instant writ petition has been filed in public interest in which following prayers have been made:-
"It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed:i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the allotment of land in Baba Ka Magra to the private respondent may kindly be cancelled, quashed and set aside.
ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be restrained from making any allotment in this eco sensitive zone of Baba Ka Magra and Jaisamand Lake.
iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, a detailed investigation may be held through CBI for identifying the officers responsible for such allotment being made and continued for 20 years and appropriate action may be initiated against the officers/authorities responsible. The authorities who failed to check the gross illegality may also be adequately penalized.
iv) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, a cost of Rs.100 crores may be imposed upon the private respondent to be utilized upon the development and restoration of the area.
v) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be restrained from making any commercial or any other hazardous activity in the region and further to take appropriate steps for restoration and conversation of the area.
vi) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the directions may kindly be issued for safeguard of ancient monuments, temple, tombs and samdhies situated in periphery of Jaisamand Lake, Baba Ka Magra, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur.
vi) By an appropriate writ, order of direction, the position with regard to aarazi No.1 of Baba Ka Magra, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur may kindly be restored as at the time of settlement.
(4 of 5)
[CW-1948/2012]
vii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.
Viii) Writ Petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.”
After perusing the prayer, we are of the opinion that the matter is required to be considered by the competent authority which is Collector, Udaipur.
In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Collector, Udaipur within 15 days and submit all his grounds and grievances before him and in the event of filing such representation, the Collector, Udaipur is directed to consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the aggrieved parties and pass reasoned order within a period of two months.
After decision, if the petitioner, has any grievance, he will be at liberty to file fresh writ petition.”
In view of the directions issued by this Court on 13.04.2018, the District Collector has passed the order dated 29.06.2018 after giving all opportunities to the affected persons and the representatives of the respondent no. 4.
We have also gone through the order passed by the District Collector dated 29.06.2018 and we find that the issues raised in the present petition have been dealt with in detail and nothing remains for this Court to consider and deliberate upon the present writ petition as the issues involved have already been decided by this Court vide its judgment dated 13.04.2018.
It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents that in the present writ petition(P.I.L), the representation relied upon by the petitioner includes several representations made by Khyali Lal Suwalka. It appears that the representation made by Khyali Lal Suwalka was already disposed of in the previous PIL referred to herein above. Therefore, nothing survives for consideration in the present writ petition.
(5 of 5)
[CW-1948/2012]
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
(INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ
8-jayesh/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the matters raised in the present writ petition regarding encroachment and lease were already decided in a previous judgment.
Whether any grievance remains for consideration after the Collector's order dated 29.06.2018.
Whether the writ petition survives for consideration given the prior disposal of identical facts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Khyali Lal SuwalkaReferred¶34
DBCWP no. 8142/2012
Bhagwan Puri
Ram Puri
Bhanvar Puri
Sambhu Puri
Sumer Puri
Naval Puri
Indrajit Mahanty
Vinit Kumar Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
