Disposed

Vinod S/O Hari Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 May 2022CW/4262/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL seeking removal of alleged road encroachments was disposed of as a factual dispute between the petitioner and the Sub-Divisional Officer regarding the contents of a 2018 letter, with the Court directing the authority to conduct a spot inspection.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of with a direction for the revenue authority to conduct a spot inspection.

Vinod S/O Hari Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4262/2022

¶3

Vinod S/o Hari Singh, R/o Village Aslimpur, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar (Contact No. 9413634709)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Revenue Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Public Work, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The District Collector, Alwar.

¶9

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Tijara, Alwar.

¶10

Assistant Engineer, Department Of Public Works, Tijara, Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajender Singh Rathore Advocate.

¶13

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

04/05/2022

Heard.

This PIL has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of direction for removal of encroachment in the factual premise that earlier a writ petition was filed with a similar allegation for removal of encroachment on the public road which was disposed off vide order dated 25.04.2017 directing the authorities to ensure that after complying with process of law the encroachers are removed and the road is restored to its original width.

¶18

It is the case of the petitioner that after the order was passed, the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 03.05.2018

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

[CW-4262/2022]

¶21

of the Sub Divisional Officer, Tijara, District Alwar that the encroachments have been removed whereas, according to the petitioner, the encroachments were in-fact not removed and false information was supplied. According to the petitioner, the encroachment continues even on the day, therefore, the present PIL had to be filed.

¶22

We find that earlier when the direction was issued, action is said to have been taken which was informed to the petitioner vide letter dated 03.05.2018. It is not the case of the petitioner that he did not receive the copy of letter dated 03.05.2018. Having not disputed that letter for a considerable length of time, it has to be held that the factual position as stated in letter dated 03.05.2018 was acceptable and not disputed by the petitioner. The representation has been given on 25.05.2021 disputing the contents of a letter dated 03.05.2018 after almost three years.

¶23

It is now a factual dispute as to whether at the place as alleged by the petitioner, there exist encroachments or not. This can best be done only by the Competent authority under the revenue laws and not by this Court. If petitioner approaches the concerned authority/Sub Divisional Officer, Tijara, District Alwar the authority would examine the complaint, conduct spot inspection and if the encroachment is found, will remove the same in accordance with law.

¶24

Accordingly, this petition is disposed off.

¶25

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶26

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ

¶27

Sanjay Kumawat-17

Vinod S/O Hari Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod S/O Hari Singh 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

Narayan Jat Son of Late Shri Ghasiram Vs State of Rajasthan

Lakhan Lal Meena S/O Shri Jaypal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Virendra Kumar Gupta S/O Heera Lal Gupta Vs Income Tax Officer

M/S Zapp India Ltd. Vs Union of India

R.K. Buildcreations Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Gopal Son of Kesar Gurjar Vs the District Collector