Disposed

Surendra Sharma S/O Radhey Shyam Sharma v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 May 2022CW/5536/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a PIL seeking eviction of encroachers on government land despite an order by the Tehsildar. The Court refused to grant directions for eviction because the affected persons who claimed regularization permissions were not impleaded in the petition, leaving the Court unable to ascertain if their claims were protected.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed without direction for eviction due to non-impleadment of affected persons.

Surendra Sharma S/O Radhey Shyam Sharma Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. (PIL) Civil Writ Petition No. 5536/2022

¶3

Surendra Sharma S/o Radhey Shyam Sharma, R/o Ward No. 01, Kanchanpura, Tehsil Sri Madhopur, Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶4

Badri Prasad S/o Suraj Mal, R/o Kancharra, Kanchanpur, Tehsil Sri Madhopur, Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector, Sikar Rajasthan.

¶8

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil- Shri Madhopur, District- Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶9

The Tehsildar, Tehsil- Shri Madhopur, District- Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶10

The Sarpanch, Gram Panchyat-Kanchanpur, Tehsil- Shri Madhopur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R B. Mathur, Sr. Counsel with Mr. Nikhil Simlote, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. D. Khandelwal, Adv.

¶13

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

Order

25/05/2022

Heard.

At the outset, Mr. D. D. Khandelwal, Adv. appears and presses his application for impleadment of parties.

¶18

The writ petition has been filed as PIL on the pleadings that there are directions for removal of encroachers who have encroached upon government land situated in village Kanchanpur Teh. Shri Madhopur District Sikar and even though Tehsildar has

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CW-5536/2022]

¶21

passed order for their eviction under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’), the authorities are not taking any action in execution of that order to remove encroachment.

¶22

The proposed applicants are some of those against whom orders have been passed by Tehsildar taking their remedy because their claim is that they are entitled to be regularized as they have been continuing in possession on the land on the basis of lease granted in their favour yet petitioners deliberately did not implead any of the affected person as party in the writ petition.

¶23

We find that after order of removal of encroachment has been passed by Tehsildar under Section 91 of the Act, this petition has been filed with prayer for direction of eviction alleging that encroachments have not been removed. The affected persons have not been impleaded in this petition.

¶24

From the contents of the application seeking impleadment as party, we find number of persons raising claims for regularization on the basis of Pattas granted in their favour.

¶25

The orders passed by the Competent Authority has to take its own course in accordance with law subject to any order that may be passed by the Competent Authority on claim, if any, with regard to regularization of occupation under any law or scheme of Government.

¶26

Since, affected persons have not been impleaded in the petition, we are not inclined to issue any direction one way or other because we do not know as to whether any order has been passed in favour of the affected persons against whom Tehsildar has been passed order under Section 91 of the Act.

¶27

This petition is disposed of only with the observations that in case the persons against whom eviction order has been passed

¶28

(3 of 3) [CW-5536/2022]

¶29

have not been protected by any order of any court, the Competent Authority shall be free to take appropriate action.

¶30

(SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /22

¶31

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ

Surendra Sharma S/O Radhey Shyam Sharma v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Sharma S/O Radhey Shyam Sharma 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

Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax Vs Shriram General Insurance Company Limited

M/S Khoj Engineering Company Vs Assistant Commissioner

M/S Khoj Engineering Company Vs Assistant Commissioner

Hari Prasad Vijay Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Yogesh Bhati S/O Ramu Ram Bhati Vs Rajasthan High Court

Dr. Gogalal Jat S/O Shri Rodulal Jat Vs State of Rajasthan