Remanded

Khinv Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Feb 2023CW/17245/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. The Court restrained dispossMe ssion pending the final decision by the Tehsildar and directed authorities to act in accordance with law and natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner shall not be dispossessed of the subject land till the final decision is taken by the concerned Tehsildar/Up-Tehsildar.

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

(1 of 2)

[2023/RJJD/003477]

[CW-17245/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17245/2022

¶6

Khinv Singh S/o Nanu Singh, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Changoi, Gram Panchayat Mikhala, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu.

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶10

The District Collector (Land Record), Churu.

¶11

The Sub Divisional Officer, Taranagar, District Churu.

¶12

The Tehsildar (Land Record), Taranagar, Churu.

¶13

The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Mikhala, Panchayat Samiti Taranagar, District Churu.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awar Dan Ujjwal

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order

¶17

02/02/2023

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

The present writ petitions have been filed with the following

¶20

prayers:-

¶21

“It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

¶22

(i) That the notice dated 19.09.2022 (Annexure-1) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶23

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be restrained to remove the house and possession of the petitioner upon the plot in question of Khasra No.258 Village Changoi, Gram Panchayat Mikhala, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance

¶25

of the notice issued on 19.09.2022, the respondent authorities are

(2 of 2)

[2023/RJJD/003477]

[CW-17245/2022]

proceeding against the petitioner in a hot-haste manner without considering the reply filed by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the concerned authorities may be directed to act in accordance with the provisions of law.

¶30

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the pleadings placed before me.

¶31

The respondent authorities have issued a notice under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 dated 19.09.2022 and the petitioner has filed reply to the said notice and the matter is pending consideration before the Tehsildar, Taranagar, District Churu. There is no occasion for this Court to assume that the authorities concerned will not act in accordance with law. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities are proceedings in hot-haste manner is also not reflected from the papers placed before this Court. However, in the interest of justice, the respondent authorities are directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law and any action taken by them must be in-conformity with law and in due compliance of the principles of natural justice.

¶32

The respondent authorities shall pass the order in the proceedings pending before it strictly in accordance with law.

¶33

Till the final decision is taken by the concerned Tehsildar/ Up- Tehsildar, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the subject piece of land.

¶34

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶35

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶36

74-Shahenshah/-

Khinv Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khinv Singh 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

Pulak Mukharjee Vs the Registrar of Trade Marks

Pulak Mukharjee Vs the Registrar of Trade Marks

Pulak Mukharjee Vs the Registrar of Trade Marks (Govt. of India)

Jeet Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rajeev Gandhi Livestock Assistant Training Center Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikram Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan