Dismissed

Rasik Lal Jain v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Oct 2023CW/3784/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an oldest writ petition alleging encroachment. The Court directed the respondent State not to interfere with the petitioner's specific land area of 27936 sq. ft. pending regular title suit, while allowing usage of remaining land outside this purview.

What did the court decide?

Restrain respondents from interfering with Petitioner's land measuring 27936 sq. ft. unless permissible by law; comment that rest of land (15193 sq. ft.) remains outside ambit.

Rasik Lal Jain Vs State and Ors. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:32624]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3784/1997

Rasik Lal Jain

----Petitioner

Versus

State And Ors

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Swati Shekhar.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Manish Tak, Dy. G.C.
	Mr. Tribhuvan Gupta.

¶10

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶11

Order

¶12

04/10/2023

¶13

The matter is listed in the category of 'oldest cases for early disposal'.

¶14

The present writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

¶15

“That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents No.1 to 4 may be restrained from taking any action against the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and may further be restrained from interfering in possession of the petitioner on the disputed land and they may be directed to get the dispute of the title decided by a regular civil suit. Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. The cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

[2023:RJ-JD:32624]

[CW-3784/1997]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question was purchased by the father of the petitioner and executed a registered sale-deed dated 15.01.1960 for the land admeasuring about 27936 sq. ft.

¶20

At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent-State has taken this Court to Exhibit-9 at Page-52 of the paper-book and particularly, paragraph No.3, which reads as follows:-

¶21

“ ;g fd uirh ds nkSjku orZeku esa Jh jlhdyky ds layXu utjh uD'ks ds vuqlkj rFkk uki ds vuqlkj 43129 oxZ QwV Hkwfe buds dCts esa gS ftudk {kS0 IyksV okj vyx vyx uD'ks esa n'kkZ;k x;k gS iqf"V gsrq uD'kk layXu gS ,oa Jh jlhdyky ds firk Jh us fnukad 151-60 dks jftLVªh djokbZ gS mlesa 27936 oxZ QwV Hkwfe ysuk gh jftLVªh esa mYys[k gS bl izdkj uirh ds nkSjku muds dCts esa 15193 oxZ QqV Hkwfe vf/kd dCts esa gSA ”

¶22

Mr. Manish Tak, learned counsel for the respondent-State fairly submits that the State does not propose to interfere with the petitioner’s land, which is 27936 sq. ft. as per the registry dated 15.01.1960 and rest of the land will be put to respective use.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in accordance with the said report, the State shall not interfere with the petitioner’s land which is 27936 sq. ft. as per the registry dated 15.01.1960, which also commensurate with the affidavit filed by the petitioner himself. However, the total land is 43129 sq.ft and thus, the extra land i.e. 15193 sq. ft does not fall within this purview.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the land belonging to the petitioner measuring about 27936 sq. ft. may not be interfered with.

¶25

(3 of 3) [CW-3784/1997]

¶26

[2023:RJ-JD:32624]

¶27

In light of the aforesaid submissions, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner’s land admeasuring about 27936 sq. ft. shall not be interfered with by the respondent unless permissible in accordance with law. However, the rest of the land i.e. 15193 sq. ft., which does not fall within the purview of the registry and ownership of petitioner, shall be free from the ambit of this order and its respective usage will be permissible by the respondents.

¶28

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶29

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶30

2-/Jitender//-

Rasik Lal Jain v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasik Lal Jain v. State and Ors.

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

Omkar Singh Vs Natthu Singh

Professor S. Karan Institute of Paramedical Sciences Vs State of Rajasthan

Aarif Khan Vs Shree Mahaveer Senior Secondary School, Ladnu

Gautam Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Kan Singh Khinchi Vs State of Rajasthan

Uttam Polyplast Vs Raj. Indu. Inv. Cor. and Arn