Allowed

Sarva Samaj Gausala Seva Samiti v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 May 2023CW/1360/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Jodhpur disposed of connected writ petitions challenging rejection of land allotment for a Gaushala. The Court directed the State to decide the application strictly in accordance with law within three months and ensure the well-being of 298 bovines until claimed by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent-State to decide application for allotment of Gaushala strictly in accordance with law within three months and ensure well-being of 298 bovines until claimed.

Sarva Samaj Gausala Seva Samiti Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

(1 of 5)

[2023/RJJD/014130]

[CW-3462/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3462/2022

¶6

Sarva Samaj Gausala Seva Samiti, (Registration No. 84/201516-Churu), Village Beed Taranagar, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu Through Its President, Maharaj Shri Kamaldas Chela Shrikant Sharandas, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Sarva Samaj Gaulala, Beed Taranagar, Ward No 10, Taranagar, District Churu.

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Public Health And Engineering, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶10

The Executive Engineer, Phed, Taranagar, District Churu. 3. The District Collector, Churu.

¶11

The Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶12

The Sub Division Officer, Taranagar, District Churu.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

Connected With

¶15

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1360/2022

¶16

Sarva Samaj Gausala Seva Samiti, (Registration No. 84/2015-16 Churu), Village Beed Taranagar, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu Through Its President, Maharaj Shri Kamaldas Chela Shrikant Sharandas, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Sarva Samaj Gaulala, Beed Taranagar, Ward No. 10, Taranagar, District Churu.

¶17

----Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Public Health And Engineering, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶20

The Executive Engineer, Phed, Taranagar, District Churu. 3. The District Collector, Churu.

¶21

The Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶22

The Tehsildar, Taranagar, District Churu.

[2023/RJJD/014130]

[CW-3462/2022]

(2 of 5)

	----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Moti Singh.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sunil Beniwal,AAG.

¶27

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI Order

¶28

09/05/2023

¶29

These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred, in sum and substance, with the following prayers and for the sake of convenience, the prayer clause is being taken from the case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3462/2022.

¶30

“a) By an appropriate writ order or direction order may kindly issued and the order dated 23.02.2022 (Annex.26) passed by District Collector Churu may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application dated 22.02.2022 (Annex.22) submitted by the petitioner Samiti may kindly be allowed.

¶31

b) By an appropriate writ order or direction order may kindly issued and the order dated 26.02.2022 (Annex.27) passed by Joint Director Animal Husbandry Department Churu may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶32

c) By an appropriate writ order or direction order may kindly issued and the communication dated 22.12.2021 issued by District Collector, Churu and further communication dated 03.01.2022 issued by Sub Division Officer, Taranagar may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondent may kindly be restrained to interference with the operation of existing Goshala upon the land in question.”

¶33

Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned Additional Advocate General at the threshold submits that there was never any allotment or any kind of legal holding of the petitioner for the purpose of Gaushala and

[2023/RJJD/014130]

[CW-3462/2022]

(3 of 5)

moreover, the policy of the State as to whether the Gochar land can be allotted to a pasture land or not is under the adjudication before the Hon’ble Division Bench and obviously allotment of such land for the purpose of Gochar is a component of such litigation.

¶38

Learned Additional Advocate General, strongly supports the State’s stand regarding not permitting any kind of encroachment in Gochar land. 4. Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that neither he is seeking regularization of encroachment and nor he is seeking any kind of rigidity in taking his bovines to a particular place, but his only relief claimed is that petitioner's application for allotment of land for Gaushala may be considered strictly in accordance with law and the current policy of the State. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the order dated 16.02.2022 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1360/2022 , this Hon’ble Court had observed that :-

¶39

“5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to move an application for allotment of land for gaushala in pasture land of nearby village. Application be filed within a period of 7 days from today.

¶40

6. In case any such application is filed, the District Collector shall consider the same in accordance with law and objectively having regard to the fact that 298 bovines are being maintained by the petitioner-Samiti and has been getting subsidy from the State Government.

(4 of 5)

[2023/RJJD/014130]

[CW-3462/2022]

7. The District Collector shall do the needful within a period of three weeks of receiving the application.

¶45

8. The petitioner’s application for allotment shall, however, not be accepted if it restrains the respondents-authorities from shifting the bovine to nearby gaushalas and does not hand-over the vacant possession of the subject land.”

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks consideration of his application strictly in accordance with law.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised apprehension regarding his 298 bovines, which have been temporarily accommodated by the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Court, on account of a larger issue of a water reservoir having been constructed at the site.

¶48

Upon such submissions having been made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that they have already accommodated the 298 bovines in different Gaushalas and are maintaining the possible health/hygiene/safety of said bovines.

¶49

Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that until the petitioner claims such bovines, they shall ensure that the 298 bovines are maintained.

¶50

Learned Additional Advocate General also assures this Court that subject to the restrictions in the aforesaid adjudication being made by the Hon’ble Division Bench and the policy of the State as on today as well as the Allotment Rules, they shall process the application of the petitioner for allotment of the Gaushala and decide it strictly in accordance with law.

[2023/RJJD/014130]

[CW-3462/2022]

(5 of 5)

Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that due to the adjudication having been made on before the Hon’ble Division Bench, the State is re-contemplating the possibilities of denial or acceptance of the Gochar Land and in case such contemplation leads to a decision that such land shall not be allotted for the purpose of Gochar, the same action shall be applied uniformally across the State.

¶55

In light of the aforesaid submissions, the present writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent-State to decide the application for allotment of Gaushala of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law. The respondent-State shall be required to make all necessary arrangements for the well being of 298 bovines, until they are claimed by the petitioners.

¶56

The necessary decision shall be taken within a period of three months from today, by passing a speaking order, strictly in accordance with law.

¶57

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶58

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶59

2-3-Jitender

Sarva Samaj Gausala Seva Samiti v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarva Samaj Gausala Seva Samiti 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

Laxmi Vs Shri Nakulal

Jaspreet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sukhdev Swami Chela Shri Ramniwas Swami Vs Smt. Kamla Devi

Kalu Singh Chouhan Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S. Mahadev Mobile Communication Nx Vs Jodhpur Nagrik Sahkari Bank Limited

Smt. Mohan Bai Vs Smt. Bhuri Bai