Partly allowed

Kantilal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Feb 2023CW/133/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these writ petitions arising from similar facts and a common order under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, the High Court of Rajasthan stayed the removal of petitioners from their shop premises. The Court directed the District Collector to decide the pending stay application in the appeals within one month and restrained respondents from disturbing possession until then.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are restrained from disturbing the possession of the petitioners over the shops and the stay applications in the appeals are disposed of accordingly.

Kantilal Vs State of Rajasthan — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/003983]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 146/2023

¶4

Bhera Ram S/o Bhikha Ram, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste Kumhar (Prajapati), R/o Khara Mahesan, District Barmer.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The District Collector, Barmer, District Barmer (Raj.).

¶9

Tehsildar, Sindhari, District Barmer.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 147/2023

¶12

Sumar Khan S/o Umardin, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Moyla (Musalman), R/o Sindhari Charnan District Barmer (Raj.).

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

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

¶16

The District Collector, Barmer, District Barmer, (Raj.). 3. Tehsildar, Sindhari, District Barmer.

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 66/2023

¶19

Vasim S/o. Mohammad, aged about 34 years, by casteKotwal (Musalman), R/o. Sindhari Chousira, District Barmer (Raj.).

¶20

----Petitioner

¶21

Versus

¶22

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

¶23

The District Collector, Barmer, District Barmer, (Raj.). 3. Tehsildar, Sindhari, District Barmer.

[2023/RJJD/003983]

[CW-146/2023]

(2 of 7)

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 85/2023

¶29

Nazir Khan, S/o. Umardin, aged about 32 years, by caste Moyla (Musalman), R/o. Sindhari Charnan District Barmer (Raj.).

¶30

----Petitioner

¶31

Versus

¶32

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶33

The District Collector, Barmer, District Barmer, (Raj.). 3. Tehsildar, Sindhari, District Barmer.

¶34

----Respondents

¶35

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 95/2023

¶36

Dinesh Kumar S/o. Laxman Ram, aged about 38 years, by caste Mali, R/o. Dhanne Ki Dhani District Barmer (Raj.).

¶37

----Petitioner

¶38

Versus

¶39

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

¶40

The District Collector, Barmer, District Barmer, (Raj.).

¶41

Tehsildar, Sindhari, District Barmer.

¶42

----Respondents

¶43

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 133/2023

¶44

Kantilal S/o. Bhera Ram, aged about 40 years, by caste Mali, R/o. Sindhari Charnan District Barmer (Raj.).

¶45

----Petitioner

¶46

Versus

¶47

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Secretariat, Government

(3 of 7)

[2023/RJJD/003983]

[CW-146/2023]

Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶52

The District Collector, Barmer, District Barmer, (Raj.).

¶53

Tehsildar, Sindhari, District Barmer.

¶54

----Respondents

¶55

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 138/2023

¶56

Manga Ram, S/o. Himtaram, aged about 42 years, by caste Kumhar, R/o. Sajara District Barmer (Raj.).

¶57

----Petitioner

¶58

Versus

¶59

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶60

The District Collector, Barmer, District Barmer, (Raj.).

¶61

Tehsildar, Sindhari, District Barmer.

¶62

----Respondents

¶63

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 297/2023

¶64

Bhopa Ram, S/o. Dungra Ram, aged about 42 years, by caste Kumhar, R/o. Chado Ki Dhani, District Barmer (Raj.).

¶65

----Petitioner

¶66

Versus

¶67

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶68

1. The District Collector, Barmer, District Barmer, (Raj.).

¶69

1. Tehsildar, Sindhari, District Barmer.

¶70

----Respondents

¶71

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 301/2023

(4 of 7)

[2023/RJJD/003983]

[CW-146/2023]

Ganpat S/o. Hanuman Ram, aged about 36 years, B/c Mali, R/o. Dhane Ki Dhani, District Barmer (Raj.).

¶76

----Petitioner

¶77

Versus

¶78

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

¶79

The District Collector, Barmer, District Barmer, (Raj.).

¶80

Tehsildar, Sindhari, District Barmer.

¶81

----Respondents

¶82

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 303/2023

¶83

Prem Singh S/o Ratan Singh, aged about 44 years, by caste Rajput, R/o. Sindhari Chausira, Tehsil Sindhari, District Barmer

¶84

----Petitioner

¶85

Versus

¶86

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

¶87

The District Collector, Barmer, District Barmer, (Raj.).

¶88

Tehsildar, Sindhari, District Barmer.

¶89

----Respondents

¶90

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 430/2023

¶91

Mustak Khan, S/o. Aadam Khan, aged about 40 years, by caste Moyla (Musalman), R/o. Girli Kitpal, District Barmer (Raj.).

¶92

----Petitioner

¶93

Versus

¶94

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Secretariat,

(5 of 7)

[2023/RJJD/003983]

[CW-146/2023]

Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶99

The District Collector, Barmer, District Barmer, (Raj.).

¶100

Tehsildar, Sindhari, District Barmer. ----Respondents

¶101

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 449/2023

¶102

Khima Ram S/o. Banshilal, aged about 40 years, by caste Nai, R/o. Sindhari Chousira, District Barmer (Raj).

¶103

----Petitioner

¶104

Versus

¶105

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶106

The District Collector, Barmer, District Barmer, (Raj.).

¶107

Tehsildar, Sindhari, District Barmer.

¶108

----Respondents

¶109

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh

¶110

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶111

Order

¶112

04/02/2023

¶113

Since all the above writ petitions are based on similar facts and arise out of the same order, therefore, they are being heard and decided finally by this common order.

¶114

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶115

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in pursuance

¶116

of the notice dated 08.07.2022 issued by the Tehsildar, Sindhari

(6 of 7)

[2023/RJJD/003983]

[CW-146/2023]

under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, the petitioners appeared before him and submitted the reply. However, the notice under Section 91 was decided against the petitioners vide order dated 29.09.2022. Aggrieved against the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by Tehsildar, Sindhari, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act before the respondent No.2-Collector Barmer. He submits that vide order dated 03.11.2022, notices have been issued on the appeal as well as on the stay application and the appeal is pending consideration.

¶121

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without deciding the stay application of the petitioners, the order under challenge passed by the Tehsildar, Sindhari is being implemented and the petitioners are being removed from the shops in question. He submits that if the respondents demolish/remove the petitioners from the property in question (shops), then the appeal before the respondent No.2 will be redundant. He, therefore, prays that till the stay application of the petitioners is decided by respondent No.2, the respondents may be restrained from removing the petitioner from the property (shops) in question.

¶122

Considering the submissions made at the Bar, this court feels that since the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending consideration before the respondent No.2, the ends of justice will be met, if the petitioners’ possession should not be disturbed till the stay application is heard and decided by the respondent No.2.

¶123

In the circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents that they shall not disturb the possession of the petitioners over the shops in question, till the

¶124

(7 of 7) [CW-146/2023]

¶125

[2023/RJJD/003983]

¶126

stay application of the petitioners is decided by the respondent No.2-Collector, Barmer. The respondent No.2 – Collector, Barmer shall decide the stay application in the appeal preferred by the petitioners at the earliest, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶127

Stay applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶128

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶129

83 & 84 + 10 c-SanjayS/-

Kantilal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kantilal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Au Small Finance Bank Ltd. Vs Union of India

Chunni Lal Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Late Kumari Laxmi Badhala Shiksha and Researh Centre Vs State of Rajasthan

Prem Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Nazir Khan Vs the State of Rajasthan