Disposed

Kanti Lal Upadhyaya v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Aug 2021CW/5396/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur disposed of a PIL regarding encroachment on government land. The Court held that the grievance is already addressed as the State Government had filed a counter-writ petition against the land allotment order, which was pending. No fresh directions were issued.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed on the ground that the substantive grievance was already addressed by a pending counter-writ petition filed by the State Government.

Kanti Lal Upadhyaya Vs State of Rajasthan — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5396/2020

¶3

Kanti Lal Upadhyaya S/o Shri Jagan Nath, Aged About 64 Years, By Caste Brahman, Resident Of Brahampuri Mohalla, Village And Post Santpur, Tehsil- Abu Road, District- Sirohi.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Gr. 3) Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

District Collector, Sirohi.

¶8

Sub Divisional Officer, Abu District Sirohi.

¶9

Tehsildar, Abu Road, District Sirohi.

¶10

Gram Panchayat, Santpur, Tehsil- Abu Road, District- Sirohi Through- Its Sarpanch And Grop Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Santpur, Tehsil- Abu Road, District Sirohi.

¶11

Jain Kumar Jain S/o Shri Notaram Jain, R/o. RIICO Colony, Abu Road, District Sirohi.

¶12

Summit Jain S/o. Jain Kumar Jain, R/o. RIICO Colony, Abu Road, District Sirohi.

¶13

Vedbhushan Garg S/o. Shri Yashpal Garg, aged about years, R/o. RIICO Colony, Abu Road, District Sirohi.

¶14

Smt. Kavita Garg W/o. Shri Vedbhushan Garg, aged about years, R/o. RIICO Colony, Abu Road, District Sirohi.

¶15

Nemi Chand S/o Shri Ramlal, aged about years, R/o.A-9, Sai Darshan Colony, Mount Abu, Tehsil Abu Road, District Sirohi.

¶16

Smt. Parvati W/o Shri Nemi Chand, aged about years, R/o.A-9, Sai Darshan Colony, Mount Abu, Tehsil Abu Road, District Sirohi.

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rajesh Shah
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Mr. Govind
	Suthar,Mr. Sunil Puorhit

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CW-5396/2020]

¶21

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶22

Order

¶23

06/08/2021

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

The present public interest litigation has been preferred by

¶26

the petitioner praying for the following reliefs :-

¶27

“(a) the respondents may kindly be directed to cancel all such steps which have been taken in respect of the land of Khasra No. 903 and 923 and again restore back the position of land to its original status and recorded in the revenue record and also stopped the raising of construction of Resort over the said land.

¶28

(b) The Hon’ble Court may please pass the directions to remove the encroachment raised by way of pucca construction or made by way of katcha construction over the land of Khasra No. 903 and 923 having the nature of gair mumkin nallah.

¶29

(c) Hon’ble the Court may please pass the directions to the authorities concerned to restore the position of all the land of Khasra No. 903 and 923 having the nature of gair mumkin nallah by removing the possession and recording the same in the name of government while correcting all the revenue record. (d). that this Hon’ble Court may please to pass the directions to the local District authorities or may appoint a Commissioner to oversee and report that present position about the unauthorized occupant over the land khasra No.903 and 923 having the nature of gair mumkion nallah.

¶30

(e) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶31

(f) Writ Petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.”

¶32

On 04/11/2020, this Court had issued the notices. In pursuance of the same, the respondents appeared before this Court and filed the reply.

¶33

(3 of 3)

¶34

[CW-5396/2020]

¶35

Shri Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 to 11 submits that taking into consideration the contentions raised in the writ petition as well as representation preferred by the petitioner before the District Collector, the District Collector has already ordered for filing of the writ petition against the order of the Board of Revenue by which the land in question was allotted to the respondents. The writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5337/2020 has been filed. The said writ petition is reported to be pending before learned Single Judge.

¶36

In this view of the matter, the grievance raised by the present petitioner in this public interest litigation has already stands addressed and remedial measures have already been undertaken by the State Government. Thus, the purpose of filing the present writ petition has already been served. However, if anything still remains then the petitioner will be free to move an appropriate application strictly in accordance with law before the learned Single Judge for supporting the cause in the writ petition filed by the State.

¶37

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in above terms. With the disposal of the writ petition, the application under Article 226(3) also stands disposed of.

¶38

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶39

(INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ

¶40

31-AnilSingh/SanjayS/VivekM-

Kanti Lal Upadhyaya v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanti Lal Upadhyaya 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

Chhoti Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Thakara Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagirath Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Rajendra Singh Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan

Lrs of Sohan Singh S/O Brij Singh @ Briju Singh Vs Jagmal Singh

Tej Singh Vs State of Rajasthan