Dismissed

Dasrath Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Jan 2023CW/848/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the auction notice for land in District Chittorgarh. The Court held that the revenue records establish the title with the Municipal Council, and thus the auction proceedings are valid, despite the petitioner's claim of possession since 1975.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and the auction notice dated 28/12/2022 stands valid.

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 848/2023

¶3

Dasrath Sharma S/o Amrat Lal Sharma, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Village Ochadi, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

¶4

Shiv Shankar S/o Sh. Amrit Lal, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village Ochadi, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

1. The District Collector, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. 3. The Commissioner, Nagar Parishad Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

¶9

1. The Gram Panchayat Semaliya, Through Gram Vikash Adhikari Viillage Seti, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Ramniwas Choudhary
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Rajesh Parihar

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶13

Order

¶14

18/01/2023

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed against the auction notice dated 28/12/2022.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father is having an old possession of the land located in Khasra No.1756 at Gram Seti, District Chittorgarh. He further submits that the said land is recorded as Gair Mumkin Abadi on

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-848/2023]

¶20

the strength of the patta issued to the grandfather of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of this land since 1975. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since patta has been issued in the name of his father and the petitioner is still holding the possession of that land, the respondents may be restrained from undertaking the proceedings of auction of the subject piece of land. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the auction notice dated 28/12/2022 may be quashed and set aside.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the land in question was in possession of the respondent Municipal Council, Chittorgarh since 1993 and the land is also recorded in the name of Municipal Council in the revenue record. The revenue entries have not been challenged by the petitioner till date. Since the respondents are holding the title and ownership of the land, therefore, they are well within their right to conduct the auction proceedings initiated by notice dated 28/12/2022. He further submits that the encroachment on the land has been removed. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed.

¶22

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and I have gone through the relevant record of the case.

¶23

The petitioner was in possession of the land since 1975 on the strength of a patta issued by the respondents but the same is not fortified from the revenue record as the entries having been made in the revenue record reflects the title in the name of respondent Municipal Council and the same has not been challenged by any authority till date, more particularly when the

¶24

(3 of 3) [CW-848/2023]

¶25

possession of the subject piece of land is with the respondent Municipal Council, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner was in possession of subject piece of land since 1975. This Court also takes note of the fact that the questions raised in the present petition also involve serious disputed questions of facts. Since the land in question has been recorded in the name of Municipal Council, Chittorgarh in the revenue records, this Court believes that the respondents are in rightful possession of the land for which the auction proceedings have been undertaken.

¶26

In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶27

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶28

206-praveen/-

Dasrath Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasrath Sharma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Purohit Vs State of Rajasthan

Madan Lal Gaur Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Kumar Chawla Vs the Bar Council of India

Sneh Lata Nagori Vs the State of Rajasthan

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

Sriram Vs State of Rajasthan