Dismissed

Jawan Singh Rao v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Jan 2022CW/481/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking removal of encroachment on public nadi land. The Court directed petitioners to approach the District Collector via the Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC) as per previous bench directions, deeming a further writ petition unnecessary absent PLPC inaction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioners directed to submit representation to District Collector for PLPC consideration.

Jawan Singh Rao Vs State of Rajasthan — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

(1 of 4)

¶2

[CW-481/2022]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 481/2022

¶5

Jawan Singh Rao S/o Ratan Singh, Aged About 49 Years, Kothar Vas, Anadara, Tehsil Reodar, District Sirohi.

¶6

Bhim Singh Bhati S/o Bhur Singh, Aged About 50 Years, Kothar Vas, Anadara, Tehsil Reodar,, District Sirohi.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector, Sirohi

¶10

President And District Collector, Public Land Protection Cell (Plpc) Sirohi.

¶11

Sub Divisional Magistrate, Reodar, District Sirohi.

¶12

Tehsildar Reodar, District Pali

¶13

Gram Panchayat Gramdani Viillage, Anadara, District Sirohi.

¶14

Bhur Singh S/o Ladu Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Anadara, Tehsil Reodar, District Sirohi

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Shah through VC For Respondent(s) : -

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

¶18

Order

¶19

18/01/2022

¶20

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

¶21

“(a) the respondents specially Public Land Protection Cell, Sirohi may kindly be directed to accept the representation from the petitioner and villagers and to take immediate action on it and make efforts to release the land of public Nadi from the person made encroachment the private respondent and again restore back the position of land to its original status and recorded in the

¶22

(2 of 4)

¶23

[CW-481/2022]

¶24

revenue record and also stopped the raising of construction of house the said land.

¶25

(b) The Hon’ble Court may please pass the directions to remove the encroachment raised by way of pucca construction made over the land of public Nadi part of Khasra No.1866 measuring 2.14 Bigha”

¶26

Having heard and considered the submissions advanced at Bar and having gone through the 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:-

¶27

“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.

¶28

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

¶29

(3 of 4)

¶30

[CW-481/2022]

¶31

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 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 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

¶32

(4 of 4)

¶33

[CW-481/2022]

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶39

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J

¶40

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶41

44-/Devesh/-

Jawan Singh Rao v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jawan Singh Rao 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

Omaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Thanvi Vs State of Rajasthan

Labh Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Saddam Vs State of Rajasthan

Peeru Arya Vs State

Ramdev Dudi Vs Kana Ram