Dismissed

Fateh Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 Nov 2021CW/895/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged eviction proceedings on government land which he alleged was his by prolonged possession. The High Court held the land was Government property, cited traffic hazards near the National Highway, and dismissed the petition while directing removal of encroachment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with a direction to the State to remove encroachment from Khasra No.1817 expeditiously.

Fateh Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 895/2019

¶3

Fateh Singh S/o Shri Panna Singh, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Rawat, Resident Of Nandavat Bheem, Tehsil Bheem, District Rajsamand.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

The District Collector, Rajsamand.

¶8

The Tehsildar, Bheem, District Rajsamand.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. RD Choudhary, Dy. GC

¶11

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶12

Order

¶13

26/11/2021

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having land in Khasra No.1818 in village Nandawat, Tehsil Bheem, District Rajsamand. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that adjacent to the said land, there is Khasra No.1817, in which, the petitioner is having prolonged possession.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Khasra No.1817 is recorded in the revenue record as bilanam and there are many other persons apart from the petitioner, who are also in possession on the same land. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the long possession of the petitioner ought to be regularized upon the Government land.

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CW-895/2019]

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in a summary proceedings against the petitioner initiated upon the letter of Senior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Juridical Magistrate, Bheem, District Rajsamand dated 25.10.2017, learned Sub Divisional Officer Bheem took up proceedings against the present petitioner for eviction. The proceedings were initiated under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and notice was served upon the petitioner on 26.10.2017, while giving him an opportunity of hearing to appear on 02.11.2017.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in a hurried manner, the notices have been issued upon the letter of the concerned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate shows the prejudice in the minds of the respondents, while seeking to evict the present petitioner.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while order of eviction was being passed, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Collector, Rajsamand, who also without giving proper opportunity of hearing dismissed the appeal on dated 19.04.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that alongwith the appeal, there was an application regarding the inspection of land and calling for the report of site Commissioner, which was also dismissed by the District Collector, Rajsamand.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Padmavati Devi (dead) by LRs. & Ors. reported in 1995 DNJ (SC) 208.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that it is an admitted possession that the petitioner is an encroacher upon the land situated in Khasra No.1817 and this is not only an

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[CW-895/2019]

¶25

encroachment, but it is very close to the National Highway and the hazard of this kind of encroachment are much wide than simple possession of the land.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner was correct in law and since admittedly the Khasra No.1817 is belong to State Government, which is recorded in the revenue record as bilanam and the petitioner being an encroacher cannot be given any benefit by this Court. Learned counsel for respondent further submits that the land in question is only 12 meters away from the center point of the national highway and the petitioner is trying to get a shop constructed over the said land is bound to create serious traffic hazard.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the petitioner had an appropriate remedy against the order of the learned District Collector and has also shown certain orders of other persons, who have taken an alternate remedy as per the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and the same have also been dismissed.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶29

This Court takes note of the fact that it is an admitted position that Khasra No.1817 situated at Village Nandawat, Tehsil Bheem, District Rajsamand is a Government land recorded as bilanam and the petitioner is nothing more than an encroacher. The precedent law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help, as it was an outcome of a peculiar factual matrix, which does not apply in the present case. The traffic hazard being pointed out by the counsel for the State as a land is just adjoining

¶30

(4 of 4)

¶31

[CW-895/2019]

¶32

to the National Highway and is only 12 meters away from the center point of the national highway, is also a cause of grave concern. The proceedings on record show that proper notice was given to the petitioner and opportunity of hearing was also given before the order was passed. The orders are well reasoned and the proceedings adopted by the concerned authorities are in accordance with law, hence, this Court does not find anything in the writ petition.

¶33

In light of the aforesaid observations, there is no ground for granting any intervention to the present petitioner in the writ jurisdiction, the writ petition is, thus, dismissed with a direction to the State to remove encroachment from the Khasra No.1817 expeditiously.

¶34

Stay petition as well as all pending applications also stand dismissed accordingly.

¶35

(PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 48-Sudheer/-

Fateh Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fateh Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Kumar Vs State

Suresh Kala Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhupesh Chandra Pareek and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Chairman Processors Ltd. Vs the Union of India

Lrs of Govind Singh and Ors. Vs Bhanwar Lal Sharma and Anr.