Dismissed

Shree Ji Govansh Goshala v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Dec 2023SAW/1010/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed an appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition seeking to quash an order allotting government land for a graveyard. The bench held the appellant lacked locus standi as they previously sought land for a cow shelter without challenging that rejection, and the matter is of public interest.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as the appellant had no locus standi.

Shree Ji Govansh Goshala Vs State of Rajasthan — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:38975-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1010/2023

¶4

Shree Ji Govansh Goshala, Through Its President Avadesh Sharma S/o Shri Siya Ram Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Purana Bazar Diggi, Tehsil- Malpura, District- Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur.

¶8

Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur.

¶9

District Collector, District- Tonk, Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶10

Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Tehsil- Malpura, DistrictTonk, Rajasthan.

¶11

Gram Panchayat Diggi, Tehsil- Malpura, District- Tonk, Rajasthan Through Its Sarpanch.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma. For Respondent(s) :

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶15

Order

¶16

11/12/2023

¶17

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20/10/2023 passed in SBCWP No.1483/2023, whereby, the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed in limine.

¶18

The petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking to question the validity of order dated 13/6/2023 (Annex.24), whereby, the District Collector, Tonk while exercising powers under the provisions of Land Revenue Act, 1956, (‘the Act, 1956’) reserved

¶19

[2023:RJ-JP:38975-DB]

¶20

[SAW-1010/2023]

¶21

(2 of 3)

¶22

land for graveyard (dfczLrku) and as the land in question was recorded as ‘Charagah’, in its place Govt. land with the same area was reserved as ‘Charagah’.

¶23

The writ petition was filed with the indications that the petitioner has established ‘Gaushala’ over the land in dispute, his application filed earlier came to be rejected by the District Collector and now the land has been allotted for graveyard and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

¶24

The learned Single Judge after hearing the petitioner dismissed the petition in limine by observing that he has no locus standi, the order has been passed in the interest of public at large and no case is made out for interference. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant made vehement submissions that the District Collector was not justified in allotting the land in question for graveyard as on earlier occasion the petitioner was denied the allotment and that once the Government land was available, there was no reason to allot the land of ‘Charagah’ for the purpose of graveyard.

¶25

Submissions have been made that learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition in limine. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

¶26

The petitioner had applied for allotment of land for running the ‘Gaushala’, which application came to be rejected on 23/5/2016 (Annex.4) and admittedly the petitioner did not question the said order dated 23/5/2016. Now the allotment in question has been made by the District Collector under the

¶27

[2023:RJ-JP:38975-DB]

¶28

[SAW-1010/2023]

¶29

(3 of 3)

¶30

provisions of the Act, 1956 and Rules thereunder, qua which apparently, the petitioner has no locus standi, as apparently the ‘Gaushala’ in question being managed by the petitioner, is presently being run without any proper allotment of land.

¶31

In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge was not justified in rejecting the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

¶32

Consequently, there is no substance in the appeal and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

¶33

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶34

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶35

Baweja/-5

Shree Ji Govansh Goshala v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Ji Govansh Goshala 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

Ram Singh Meena S/O Sh. Ram Karan Meena Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S Preeti Lce Cream and Foods Vs Commissioner Taxes Officer Andanr

Muskan Khandelwal D/O Dinesh Khandelwal Vs Union of India

Bhagwan Dass Agarwal S/O Late Shri Ram Charan Lal Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan through Its Principal Law Secretary

Rajender Kumar Maan S/O Roora Ram Maan Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Shanti Devi W/O Shri Goverdhan Lal Kumawat Vs Collector (Stamps)