Disposed

Mohd. Ramjan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Oct 2022CW/8104/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench held that the respondent-Dy Commissioner should expedite pending suit and injunction proceedings within two months and restrain allotment of the subject land to any other person pending the decision of the temporary injunction application.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Deputy Commissioner to expedite suit and decide injunction within two months; restraint on alloting land to others pending injunction decision.

Mohd. Ramjan Vs State of Rajasthan — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8104/2022

¶3

Mohd. Ramjan S/o Ali Khan, Aged About 20 Years, Caste Musalman R/o Cheenu, Tehsil- Pokran District - Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner Colonization, Bikaner.

¶7

The Dy. Commissioner, Colonization I.g.n.p., Nachana, Distt. - Jaisalmer.

¶8

The Colonization Tehsildar, Nachana No. 1, Distt. - Jaisalmer.

¶9

Ali Khan S/o Shri Maruf Khan, Caste Musalman R/o Cheenu, Tehsil - Pokran, District - Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

¶10

Mohd. Mukhtar S/o Ali Khan, Caste Musalman R/o Cheenu, Tehsil - Pokran, District - Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Shrawan Singh Nirban for Mr.
	Mahipal Singh Rathore.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Joshi, AGC.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶14

Order

¶15

14/10/2022

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of the land situated at village Cheenu, TehsilPokaran District Jaisalmer. He submits that while the petitioner was in possession over the said land, he instituted a suit for declaration before the Deputy Commissioner, Colonization, IGNP, Nachana District Jaisalmer along with an application seeking

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[CW-8104/2022]

¶20

interim injunction. It is also contended that during the pendency of the suit as well as the injunction application of the petitioner, the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject piece of land. He, therefore, prays that the respondent No.2 may be directed to expedite the suit proceedings and decide the injunction application of the petitioner within a specific time frame. He also prays that till the temporary injunction application is decided, his possession over the land may not be disturbed.

¶21

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of limited prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, IGNP, Nachana District Jaisalmer to expedite the proceedings of the suit and injunction application and at least decide the injunction application of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶22

It is made clear that till the temporary injunction application of the petitioner is decided, the respondents shall not allot the subject piece of land to any other person.

¶23

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶24

83-AnilSingh/-

Mohd. Ramjan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ramjan 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

Neeru Bala Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Dungar Dan Vs the State of Rajasthan

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Surajmukhi

Shri Sawai College of Pharmacy Vs State of Rajasthan

Heera Singh Vs Totti @ Tejo