Dismissed

Anil Kumar v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 Oct 2021SAW/100/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a single judge's order declining writ jurisdiction. The court held that the prayers to restrain a Sarpanch from interfering in commercial land use were based on vague averments and factual disputes better resolved through a civil suit, thus inappropriate for Article 226 jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The appeal dismissing writ jurisdiction is discharged; interlocutory order below stands affirmed.

Anil Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 100/2020

¶3

Anil Kumar S/o Shri Mangal Chand Jain, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste Jain, R/o Near Jain Mandir, Raipur, Tehsil Raipur District Pali.

¶4

Taradevi W/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Jain, Aged About 70 Years, By Caste Jain, R/o Near Jain Mandir, Raipur, Tehsil Raipur District Pali.

¶5

----Appellants Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Department Of Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The District Collector, Pali.

¶8

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Raipur, Dist. Pali.

¶9

The Tehsildar, Raipur, Dist. Pali.

¶10

Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Raipur, Dist. Pali.

¶11

Chainaram, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Raipur, Dist. Pali.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s)	:	Mr.	M.S. Purohit
For Respondent(s)	:	---

¶14

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶15

Judgment

¶16

26/10/2021

¶17

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16543/2019.

¶18

The prayers, which have been made by the appellantspetitioners in the writ petition, were virtually to restrain the respondent Sarpanch from interfering in the endeavour of the

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

[SAW-100/2020]

¶21

appellants-petitioners to use the land for commercial purpose despite the appropriate order of conversion. The learned Single Judge found that the averments made in the writ petition were vague and based upon mere apprehensions and the same involved purely disputed questions of facts.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the documents on record, we are of the view that the prayers, which were made in the writ petition, could have been ventilated by filing a civil suit. In any event, the facts as asserted by the writ petitioners in the writ petition did not warrant exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶23

Hence, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.

¶24

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ 2-MohitTak/-

Anil Kumar v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Gurcharan Singh @ Baba Vs State of Rajasthan

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs Praveen Sharma

Suresh Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Mamta Kamra Vs the State of Rajasthan

Suman Vs State of Rajasthan