Dismissed

Kedar Mal Khinchi Son of Shri Santuram Khinchi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Jul 2023CW/6387/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the allotment of 36 hectares of land for an electricity sub-station. The court found the land recorded as forest (Beed) in Jamabandi records, rejecting the claim it was pasture land, and held the allotment to be a valid public purpose.

What did the court decide?

The Public Interest Litigation petition was dismissed as having no substance.

Kedar Mal Khinchi Son of Shri Santuram Khinchi Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:14962-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 6387/2020

¶4

Kedar Mal Khinchi Son Of Shri Santuram Khinchi, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Jasrapur, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

District Collector, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶10

Tehsildar, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶11

Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶12

Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Jasrapur, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶13

Gram Panchayat Jasrapur, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) Through Village Secretary.

¶14

Khetari Transco Limited, Through Its Deputy General Manager Khetari District Jhunjhunu.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Yashodhar Pandey Advocate. Mr. Prateek Sharma Advocate.

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Judgment

¶18

21/07/2023

¶19

Heard.

¶20

This PIL seeks to challenge the action of the respondents in the matter of allotment of land ad-measuring 36 Hectares for

¶21

[2023:RJ-JP:14962-DB]

¶22

[CW-6387/2020]

¶23

(2 of 4)

¶24

establishment of Electricity Sub Station at Village Jasrapur, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu.

¶25

Referring to the pleadings and the documents attached with the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the land, which has been allotted for the purposes of establishing Electricity Sub Station is a Charagah (Pasture) land and not forest land. The allotment of pasture land for non pasture land usages as has been done vide impugned order dated 01.06.2020 is in utter violation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh & Others Versus State of Punjab & Others, 2011 (11) Supreme Court Cases 396 as also the provisions contained in Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Setting up of Power Plant based on Renewable Energy Sources) Rules, 2007 which allows diversion of the land for the purpose of allotment only after following the procedure prescribed therein, which has not been followed.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8 jointly submit that right from the beginning, the land has been recorded as a forest land ( Beed ) and on the request made by the Central Government, Department of Forest, the process for allotment of land was initiated and allotment has been made.

¶27

Though in the pleadings, the petitioner claims that the land in dispute is a Charagah (Pasture) land, we do not find that in any of the documents annexed along with the petition, the land in dispute has been recorded Charagah (Pasture) land. Annexure-5, which is Jamabandi record, clearly records that the land as

¶28

[2023:RJ-JP:14962-DB]

¶29

[CW-6387/2020]

¶30

(3 of 4)

¶31

(झ�ड़�द�र वन). All the entries made in the Jamabandi record the land as ( Beed ), i.e., a forest. True it is that in the Jamabandi record, it is also recorded that the land could be used for pasture purposes but that does not mean that the land is recorded or identified as Charagah (Pasture) land and is being used for grazing of cattle.

¶32

The other documents placed on record by the petitioner nowhere record that the land is recorded as Charagah (Pasture) land. On the other hand, in the documents, the land is recorded and referred to as Beed (forest), the order of allotment of the land in dispute made by the Collector on 01.06.2020, impugned in this petition, also clearly records the land as Beed (forest).

¶33

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the order, the Collector has also instructed that the land would be recorded as forest and available for pasture, therefore, it should be treated as pasture cannot be accepted. Pasture land has been defined under Section 5(28) of the Rajasthan Tenency Act, 1955, which reads as under:-

¶34

“28. “Pasture land” shall mean land used for the grazing of the cattle of a village or villages or recorded in settlement records as such at the commencement of this Act or thereafter reserve as such in accordance with rules framed by the State Government.”

¶35

The aforesaid definition does not include a forest land merely because it is identified as land which could be used in future as pasture land.

¶36

It is not a case that the land has been encroached without any authority of law. The Collector has passed the order of

¶37

(4 of 4) [CW-6387/2020]

¶38

[2023:RJ-JP:14962-DB]

¶39

allotment of land in favour of the respondent No.8. Respondent No.8 is a Government of India undertaking, which is engaged in the work of transmission of electricity for which purpose, it has taken NOC from various authorities and the land has been duly allotted in its favour. Electricity Sub Station has been constructed thereon. Obviously, it is a public purpose.

¶40

Taking into consideration the aforesaid material on record and the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of allotment of land to the respondent No.8.

¶41

Therefore, this PIL petition has no substance and the same is dismissed.

¶42

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J Sanjay Kumawat-45

Kedar Mal Khinchi Son of Shri Santuram Khinchi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kedar Mal Khinchi Son of Shri Santuram Khinchi 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

Smt. Meena Saini W/O Shri Ramswaroop Saini Vs Shri Brijesh Kumar Gupta

Bhuda Ram S/O Shri Choukha Ram Vs Shri D.B. Gupta

Mahendra Singh Ola S/O Shri Prahlad Singh Ola Vs Shri Somnath Mishra

Ram Datt Sharma Son of Late Shri Sahab Dayal Sharma, Vs Shri Gaurav Goyal

Smt. Chaman Choudhary W/O Shri Ranjeet Singh, Vs Pawan Kumar Goyal

Manju Devliya W/O Shri Priya Darshan Sharma (Lecturer) (Commerce) Vs Smt. Arpana Arora