Dismissed

Narayan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Oct 2022CW/11312/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench dismissed a Public Interest Litigation concerning illegal encroachment on pasture land, directing petitioners to utilize the Land Protection Cell mechanism established in previous judgments instead of filing the writ directly.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to submit representation to District Collector under PLPC mechanism constituted in Jagdish Prasad Meena & Ors. case.

Narayan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11312/2022

¶4

Narayan Lal S/o Shri Bhikha Ram, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Main Road, Bilawas, Pali, Rajasthan.

¶5

Kewal Chand S/o Jetha Ram, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of 141 Bhrampuri Pawata Road, Beelawas, Pali, Rajasthan.

¶6

Deva Ram S/o Shri Suja Ram, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Sado Ki Haveli, Bilawas, Pali, Rajasthan.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶11

District Collector, Pali. 4. Tehshildar, Sojat, District Pali.

¶12

Gram Panchayat Bheelawas, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali Through Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Beelawas.

¶13

Sujaram S/o Shri Shri Ramaram, By Caste Seervi, Resident Of Village Beelawas, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.

¶14

Manglaram S/o Umedaram Seervi, By Caste Seervi, Resident Of Village Beelawas, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.

¶15

Chimnaram S/o Sujaram Seervi, By Caste Seervi, Resident Of Village Beelawas, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.

¶16

Voraram S/o Nenaram Seervi, By Caste Seervi, Resident Of Village Beelawas, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.

¶17

Narayan Lal S/o Pukaram Seervi, By Caste Seervi, Resident Of Village Beelawas, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.

¶18

Nemaram S/o Ukaram Seervi, By Caste Seervi, Resident Of Village Beelawas, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.

¶19

Valaram S/o Cholaram Seervi, By Caste Seervi, Resident Of Village Beelawas, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.

¶20

Maina Devi W/o Babulal Nai, By Caste Nai, Resident Of Village Beelawas, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.

¶21

Kanaram S/o Umedaram Seervi, By Caste Seervi, Resident Of Village Beelawas, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.

¶22

Surjaram S/o Umedaram Seervi, By Caste Seervi,

¶23

(2 of 5)

¶24

[CW-11312/2022]

¶25

Resident Of Village Beelawas, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.

¶26

1. Hemaram S/o Achlaram Seervi, By Caste Seervi, Resident Of Village Beelawas, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.

¶27

Bhanwari Devi W/o Chailaram Seervi, By Caste Seervi, Resident Of Village Beelawas, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.

¶28

Khumaram S/o Ukaram Seervi, By Caste Seervi, Resident Of Village Beelawas, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.

¶29

Pokaram S/o Chautharam, By Caste Seervi, Resident Of Village Beelawas, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.

¶30

Sadaram S/o Muknaram Seervi, By Caste Seervi, Resident Of Village Beelawas, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.

¶31

Umra Ram S/o Lacha Ram Seervi, By Caste Seervi, Resident Of Village Beelawas, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.

¶32

Raju Ram S/o Kanaram Nai, By Caste Nai, Resident Of Village Beelawas, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.

¶33

Madanlal S/o Kanaram Nai, By Caste Nai, Resident Of Village Beelawas, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.

¶34

----Respondents

¶35

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)	: Mr. : -	L.R. Upadhyaya

¶36

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶37

Order

¶38

10/10/2022

¶39

The petitioners have approached this Court by way of this writ petition (PIL) with the following prayer:-

¶40

“i. The Respondents may be directed to remove illegal encroachment by the private respondents on Khasra No. 4462 of Village - Beelawas, Tehsil – Sojat, District - Pali.”

¶41

Having heard and considered the submissions advanced by counsel representing the petitioners and, having gone through the

¶42

(3 of 5)

¶43

[CW-11312/2022]

¶44

material available on record, we are of the firm view that the petitioners have available to them a suitable remedy for ventilating their grievances by virtue of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.10819/2018 decided on 30.01.2019 wherein this Court directed as below:-

¶45

“This Court is inundated with large number of writ petitions, styled as public interest litigation, from almost all the Districts of the State, with allegations of encroachment over the pasture land/ land of ‘johad’, ‘talab’/ river/river bed/public way/Shamshan/Kabristan etc. In all such petitions, common allegation is that despite repeated complaints/representations to the concerned revenue officers, no steps are taken by them to remove the encroachment. This results in number of writ petitions being filed by the complainants/representationists before this Court. This Court has been passing orders in such matters requiring the respective District Collectors to examine the factual content of the allegations and take steps to remove the encroachments so as to secure such land.

¶46

In order therefore to provide a pan-Rajasthan solution to this ever persisting problem, we deem it appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary of the State to devise a permanent mechanism, which should be operational in every District of the State where the concerned District Collector should be required to periodically notify for the information of the general public to lodge the complaints/representations with regard to such encroachments with a specially designated Public

¶47

(4 of 5)

¶48

[CW-11312/2022]

¶49

Land Protection Cell (for short ‘PLPC’) for rural areas. The PLPC should be headed by District Collector and function under his direction and supervision. The PLPC shall get such complaints/representations enquired into by deputing concerned Sub DivisionalOfficer/Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar so as to verify whether or not such encroachments have actually taken place on such land. If the allegations are found to be substantiated, appropriate steps in accordance with law be immediately taken for removal of the encroachments and appropriate penal action be also taken against the trespassers. The complaints/representations received in the PLPC should be decided by passing speaking order, informing the respective complainant/representationist about the action taken. This would obviate the necessity of such complainants/ representationists approaching this Court directly by way of public interest litigation. If this practice is put in place, this Court would not be inclined to directly entertain such public interest litigation or would do so only in the event of inaction on the part of the concerned PLPC. The PLPC aforementioned shall also keep in view the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2011) 11 SCC 396wherein all the State Governments of the country were directed that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/ unauthorised occupants of the Gram Sabha/GramPanchayat/Poramboke/ Shamlat land and the same must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal

¶50

(5 of 5)

¶51

[CW-11312/2022]

¶52

occupants, after giving them a showcause notice and a brief hearing. It was further held therein that long duration of the illegal encroachment/occupation of land or huge expenditure in making construction thereon or political connections of trespassers are no justification for regularising such illegal occupation. Regularisation should be permitted only in exceptional cases where lease has been granted under some government notification e.g. to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or where there is already a school, hospital, dispensary, ‘shamshan’, ‘kabristan’ or other public utility of the like nature on the land.”

¶53

Thus, the petitioners are relegated to submit a representation to the District Collector concerned, who shall assign the matter to the PLPC constituted under the directions of this Court.

¶54

The PLPC shall have a thorough enquiry conducted into the representation of the petitioners in light of the directions given by this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Meena (Supra) and decide the same within a period of three months from the date of submission thereof.

¶55

In case, any adverse order is passed, the petitioners shall be at liberty to challenge the same as per law.

¶56

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶57

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶58

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶59

60-Divya/-

Narayan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Lal 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs Kanta Garasiya

State of Rajasthan Vs Rais Mohammad

State of Rajasthan Vs Panne Singh Sankhla

Harsilal Vs State

Babu Lal Siyag Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan