Allowed

Shriram Son of Shri Jayram, v. Krishan Kant Pathaka Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department

Rajasthan HC13 Mar 2024CCP/689/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition, the Court directed the Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC) to pass a speaking order on the petitioner's encroachment complaint and provide a hearing to the alleged encroachers, ensuring compliance with previous PIL directions regarding rural public land protection.

What did the court decide?

Directed PLPC to pass a speaking order on the complaint and provide an opportunity of hearing to alleged encroachers; nominated official for supervising PLPC data.

Shriram Son of Shri Jayram, Vs Krishan Kant… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:12505-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 689/2021

¶4

Shriram Son Of Shri Jayram, R/o Village Phaloda, Near Bus Stand Phaloda, Ajmer.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Krishan Kant Pathaka Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Prakash Rajpurohit, District Collector Ajmer/chairman Public Land Protection Cell, Ajmer.

¶9

Parsa Ram Sub Divisional Officer, Kishangarh, District Ajmer.

¶10

Nand Lal Bhadu, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Tiloniya, District Ajmer.

¶11

Mohan Singh Rajawat, Tehsildar, Kishangarh, District Ajmer.

¶12

Bhagwan Arvind, Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Silora District Ajmer.

¶13

Dr. Gaurav Saini, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ajmer.

¶14

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

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj Mr. Avadesh Kumar Purohit

¶17

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG assisted by Ms. Pratyushi Mehta

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order

¶19

13/03/2024 AVNEESH JHINGAN,J (ORAL):-

¶20

The contempt petition is filed pleading non-compliance of the directions passed by this Court on 23.03.2021 in D.B. CWP No.3576/2021.

¶21

(2 of 4)

¶22

[2024:RJ-JP:12505-DB]

¶23

[CCP-689/2021]

¶24

The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:-

¶25

“3. A Division Bench of this Court in Jagdish Prashad Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition(PIL) No.10819/2018 vide order dated 30.01.2019, has directed creation of Public Land Protection Cell (PLPC) for rural areas in every district.

¶26

4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be permitted to submit a representation before the PLPC and respondents be directed to dispose of the same within a period oftwo months.

¶27

5. Mr. Anil Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objections to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner for referring the matter to the PLPC.

¶28

6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed of in view of the directions issued by the Division Bench in Jagdish Prashad Meena (supra) and the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation before PLPC and the respondents are directed to decide the same within a period of two months.”

¶29

Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to give the backdrop of this litigation. In view of number of Public Interest Litigation filed pleading that the encroachments are not being removed, in D.B. CWP (PIL) No.10819/2018 titled as Jagdish Prashad Meena & Ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors. directions were issued on 30.01.2019 for devising a permanent mechanism in every district of the State for general public to lodge complaints with regard to the encroachments. A Public Land Protection Cell (for brevity ‘PLPC’) headed by District Collector was to be created. The complaints received were required to be inquired into by deputing field officers and to verify the factual position. Appropriate steps were to be taken for removal of the

¶30

[2024:RJ-JP:12505-DB]

¶31

[CCP-689/2021]

¶32

(3 of 4)

¶33

encroachments and to penalize the trespassers. The directions were that the PLPC shall decide the complaint by passing a speaking order informing the complainant about the action taken. 3. In the present case, the Member Secretary, PLPC vide communication dated 09.02.2022 informed the petitioner that the complaint has been dealt with. On receiving of a complaint after enquiry, proceedings were initiated for removal of encroachments. 4. The directions for passing a speaking order are not complied with in case in hand. The communication does not fulfill the prerequisites of a speaking order. The passing of speaking order is necessitated to ensure that the complainant gets the update of the action taken as well as the reasons for not removing alleged encroachments and where the allegations of encroachments were found to be incorrect.

¶34

The procedure directed to be adopted provides an opportunity to the alleged encroachers to put-forth their version and to avail remedies in accordance with law.

¶35

The petition is disposed of with directions to the PLPC to pass a speaking order on the complaint made by the petitioner. The alleged encroachers shall be provided an opportunity of hearing while dealing with the matter. It would be desirable that an endeavour is made to decide the matter preferably within two months from receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶36

In various cases, it has come to the notice of this Court that PLPC is not passing speaking orders on the complaints received. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan to ensure that this order along with requisite

¶37

[2024:RJ-JP:12505-DB]

¶38

[CCP-689/2021]

¶39

instructions are circulated to PLPC of each district and to the officers dealing with the issues.

¶40

It is pertinent to note that number of cases are being filed pleading that proper action is not taken on representations. To ensure proper working of PLPC’s and for supervision, the Chief Secretary shall nominate a senior official to whom monthly data be sent online by all PLPC with regard to complaint received, actions taken and complaints found to be false.

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

SIMPLE/PAYAL/137

Whether Reportable: Yes

Shriram Son of Shri Jayram, v. Krishan Kant Pathaka Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram Son of Shri Jayram, v. Krishan Kant Pathaka Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department

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

Kanheaya Lal S/O Shri Rambash Patel, Vs Usha Sharma

Vinay Pratap Singh Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 4 Jaip

Gopal Singh S/O Shri Ram Singh Rathore Vs Shri Mukesh Tiwari

Smt Kesar Bai Vs State Finance Departmentors

Shri Ashwini Kuamr Agarwal Vs Commissioner of Income Taxandanr

G P Sharma and Ors. Vs U O I and Ors.