Disposed

Bhikha Ram v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Feb 2022CW/1568/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan disposed of multiple writ petitions challenging the Swaran Jayanti Residential Scheme. Finding no map overlap between the scheme land and petitioners' claimed land, the Court refused a total restraint on the scheme but directed authorities to protect patta holders legally and provide a hearing to non-patta holders.

What did the court decide?

No restraint on the Residential Scheme; directions to protect patta holders; liberty to non-patta holders to approach authorities.

Bhikha Ram Vs State and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

(1 of 11)

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3457/2016
Smt. Geeta Devi
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1567/2015
Hanuman Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1568/2015
Bhikha Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1571/2015
Ummed Singh Parihar
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2745/2015
Surja Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2919/2015
Neer Singh

¶4

(2 of 11)

¶5

----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2920/2015
Neer Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2999/2015
Manohar Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3448/2016
Smt. Omi Devi
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3449/2016
Manohar Lal
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3450/2016
Ali Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent

¶6

(3 of 11)

¶7

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3452/2016
Adhisal Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3453/2016
Kamal Kishore
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3454/2016
Ramswaroop
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3455/2016
Roopa Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3456/2016
Ganga Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3466/2016
Smt. Sumitra Devi
----Petitioner
Versus

(4 of 11)

State And Ors

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3467/2016

Ram Lal

----Petitioner

Versus

State And Ors

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3545/2016 Bhanwari Devi ----Petitioner Versus State And Ors ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3547/2016 Mohan Lal ----Petitioner Versus State And Ors ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4885/2016 Asha Ram Bhakhar ----Petitioner Versus State And Ors ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5384/2016

¶17

Rajesh Kumar State And Ors

¶18

----Petitioner Versus

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6653/2016

¶21

Asha Ram Bhakhar

¶22

(5 of 11)

¶23

----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6654/2016
Smt. Vimal Kanwar
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6655/2016
Narayan Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6656/2016
Dhane Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2746/2015
Virendra Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2747/2015
Smt. Vinod Kanwar
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors

¶24

(6 of 11)

¶25

----Respondent

¶26

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sumer Singh Rathore, on VC.
	Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore,on VC.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sunil Beniwal,AAG,on VC.

¶27

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶28

Order

¶29

04/02/2022

¶30

In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts.

¶31

Looking to the commonality of the issues involved in the present petitions, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.

¶32

For the sake of brevity, the facts and the prayer clauses are being taken from SBCWP No.1567/2015, while treating the same as a lead case:-

¶33

“(i) The Swaran Jayanti Residential Scheme launched by the respondents may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary, unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶34

(ii) The respondents may kindly be restrained from receiving the application under Swaran Jayanti Residential Scheme for the land of Khasra No.84/19 Village Ridmalsar Purohitan, Tehsil & District Bikaner. (iii) The respondents may kindly be restrained from evicting the petitioner from his pattasuda plot admeasuring 50X33 feet situated in Tilak Nagar, Khasra No.84/19, Village Ridmalsar Purohitan, Tehsil & District Bikaner.

¶35

(7 of 11)

¶36

(iv) The respondents may kindly be directed to pay the compensation to the petitioner for demolition of the residential house of the petitioner.

¶37

(v) The respondents may kindly be restrained from drawing the lottery for Swaran Jayanti Residential Scheme scheduled to be held on 25.03.2015.”

¶38

The brief facts of the case as noticed by this Court are that the petitioners have been claiming the rights over Khatedari agricultural land in Khasra No.84/2019 in village Ridmalsar Purohitan, Tehsil and District Bikaner. The petitioners admit that Sugani, Tulchhi, Anchi, Udi, Ami are daughters of Rughji and from them their right emanates.

¶39

The bone of contention is that the rights claimed by the petitioners get affected by Swaran Jayanti Yojana being brought by the UIT, Bikaner at Khasra No.99/2019, which is said to be affecting the rights of the present petitioners. There is apprehension that the location of the petitioner’s land and UIT Scheme overlapping.

¶40

The grid station, which is adjacent to both the lands is also there on the map. The present writ petitions are of a common place and on a common facts and grounds, but it can be broadly classified into two separate types of writ petitions, one is where the petitioners are holding the pattas , second where the petitioners are not holding the pattas but are claiming their rights by virtue of prolonged possession or in any other manner.

¶41

In the writ petitions, the first category of pattas holders are the petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.1567/2015, 1568/2015, 1571/2015, 2919/2015, 4885/2016 and 6654/2016 and rest of the writ petitions belongs to the petitioners are not having a patta .

¶42

(8 of 11)

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners in their own capacity to have rights over the said land are aggrieved by the Swaran Jayanti Residential Scheme, which has been brought by the respondent-UIT as it is encroaching upon the rights of the present petitioners.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Scheme of Swaran Jayanti Residential Scheme to the Khasra No.84/2019, village Ridmalsar Purohitan, Tehsil & District Bikaner has to be stopped, as it is directly affecting the present petitioners.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are having their own rights, as patta holders and possession holders and their rights which are emanating out of the rights of Sugani, Tulchhi, Anchi, Udi, Ami are daughters of Rughji in Khasra No.84/2019 cannot be taken away without adopting due process of law.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that their properties have been damaged and without affording any opportunity of hearing, their properties have disturbed by the respondents.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioners also informed that certain persons have already filed suit regarding their rights in which a restrainment order by the Civil Judge Judicial Magistrate, District Bikaner is in currency.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ jurisdiction is being invoked with the limited purpose that the Swaran Jayanti Residential Scheme launched in Khasra No.99/2019 may not be disturbed the rights of the present petitioners, as their rights are crystallized to Khasra No.84/2019.

¶49

(9 of 11)

¶50

Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the Swaran Jayanti Residential Scheme is strictly in Khasra No.99/2019, which is under absolute ownership of the UIT and thus, no claim or disturbance can be caused by the petitioners to the Swaran Jayanti Residential Scheme, which is a lawful scheme of the UIT.

¶51

Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the map on record, which is Annexure-3, factually shows that Khasra No.84/2019 and Khasra No.99/2019 separately exist and thus, there is no question of them getting into the Khasra No.84/2019.

¶52

Learned Additional Advocate General also demonstrates from the map that the location of Tilak Nagar where the patta issued is also separate from the Swaran Jayanti Residential Scheme.

¶53

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that certain patta holders of the petitioners were issued pattas which is not denied but the pattas were issued unlawfully and thus the anti corruption proceedings are going-on against the persons, who have issued the pattas and also the UIT as well as the State is conscious of the fact that such pattas could not have been issued, however, the pattas are in existence.

¶54

Learned counsel for the respondents also further submits that since the proceedings have been undertaken under the Anti Corruption Law, the State and UIT be left free to take all the necessary actions provided under the law against the pattas, if found illegal, whereas, they will not disturb the patta holders until such proceedings adopted by due process of law culminate into finality.

¶55

Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the persons, who have not having the pattas, which is a second

¶56

(10 of 11)

¶57

category of writ petitioners. They have right of possession and cannot claim any relief before this Court. However, he submits that in case, those persons having any kind of possession move an application before the UIT or the concerned State Authority, the applications regarding their rights shall be considered strictly in accordance with law.

¶58

At this stage, Mr. Shambhoo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, appearing at serial No.99 submits that the process of pattas was going on for the petitioner in this case and thus, he also requires to be protected.

¶59

This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record finds that the maps and the land record, which is a part of the pleadings, do not reflect any kind of overlapping of Khasra No.99/2019 & Khasra No.84/2019. Although, there seems to be some confusion regarding the practical existence of the Khasra in question. Learned Additional Advocate General informed this Court that certain records pertaining to both the Khasras were missing, therefore, the exact demarcation also is yet to take final shape.

¶60

This Court looking into the fact that the UIT is making its Swaran Jayanti Residential Scheme only in Khasra No.99/2019, whereas the petitioners are in Khasra No.84/2019 is not inclined to pass any restrainment order upon the Swaran Jayanti Residential Scheme. However, at the same time, the respondents are directed to protect the rights of patta holders unless the same may be interfered with only after adhering to the process strictly in accordance with law, as already assured by the learned Additional Advocate General.

¶61

(11 of 11)

¶62

As far as the non-patta holders are concerned, they are given liberty that they may approach the respondents with their documents of possession or any other right which is accruing to them, the rights of such parties shall be considered by the respondents after giving them opportunity of hearing and thereafter, the orders be passed strictly in accordance with law.

¶63

It is expected that the State and UIT update their demarcation process expeditiously so as to ensure that there is no overlapping of the Khasras in-question at the site. An effective demarcation is likely to resolve the dispute from the root. The petitioners shall approach the respondents within a period of thirty days from today with all their documents or any other thing that they wish to bring on record.

¶64

The respondents shall, thereafter, pass an appropriate orders as directed within a period of three months from today. The respondents shall be free to take any action strictly in accordance with law. The classification of patta holder petitioners vis-a-vis non- patta holder shall be borne in mind by the authorities while deciding the representation.

¶65

With the aforesaid directions and observations, the writ petitions are disposed of. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶66

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶67

Ashutosh-84-109-C1-C2/-

Bhikha Ram v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhikha Ram v. State and Ors.

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

Harendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramzan Khan Vs State

Secretary Education Committee Sri Singh Vs Smt. Mardula Mehta and Ors.

Ummed Singh Parihar Vs State and Ors.

Jitendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Hanuman Singh Vs State and Ors.