Disposed

Tararam v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Aug 2024CW/11070/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging notice to remove encroachment. Court directed Development Officer to consider representation with a stay on dispossession pending the decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file representation before Development Officer within two weeks; they shall not be dispossessed until representation is decided; stay application disposed.

Tararam Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:33037]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11070/2024

¶4

Tararam S/o Kana Ram, Aged About 63 Years, Gram Badabagh, Tehsil and District Jaisalmer.

¶5

Smt. Pushpa Devi W/o Tara Ram, Aged About 57 Years, Gram Badabagh, Tehsil and District Jaisalmer.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

District Collector, District Jaisalmer (Raj.)

¶10

Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bada Bagh, Panchayat Samiti Jaisalmer (Raj.)

¶11

Gram Sevak, Gram Panchayat Bada Bagh Panchayat Samiti Jaisalmer (Raj.)

¶12

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaisalmer (Raj.)

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Pandey for Mr. Vijay Kumar Vyas

¶15

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶16

Order

¶17

08/08/2024

¶18

By way of the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the notice dated 10.03.2024, whereby the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bada Bagh, Tehsil and District Jaisalmer, has asked the petitioners to remove their encroachment.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no.2 is having registered patta in her favour and the complainant Gena Ram had instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners, which was rejected by the trial

[2024:RJ-JD:33037]

[CW-11070/2024]

(2 of 3)

court vide judgment and decree dated 08.09.2022, which has attained finality.

¶24

Learned counsel submitted that after dismissal of the suit, the Sarpanch of Garm Panchayat Bada Bagh, who is sister of Gena Ram, issued the impugned notice dated 10.03.2024 requiring the petitioners to remove the purported encroachment. Learned counsel submitted that though the petitioners have submitted a reply in furtherance of notice dated 10.03.2024, the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bada Bagh is likely to take coercive measure for removal of the petitioners’ construction.

¶25

It is to be noted that after 10.03.2024, the petitioners have not received any communication, which indicates that the respondents are perhaps satisfied with the reply so filed by the petitioners.

¶26

Be that as it may.

¶27

The concerned Development Officer, Gram Panchayat Bada Bagh shall consider petitioners’ representation in accordance with law.

¶28

For the purpose aforesaid, the petitioners are directed to file a representation before the concerned Development Officer alongwith a certified copy of the order instant; photocopy of the notice dated 10.03.2024; copy of reply and any other document, within a period of two weeks from today.

¶29

In case, the representation is so addressed, the concerned Development Officer shall consider the same in accordance with law. In case, the Development Officer finds that the petitioners are encroachers, he/Gram Panchayat shall issue a 15 days’ notice to the petitioners.

[2024:RJ-JD:33037]

[CW-11070/2024]

(3 of 3)

Until the petitioners’ representation is decided, they shall not be dispossessed.

¶34

Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶35

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶36

522-Mak/-

Tararam v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tararam v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanhaiyalal Vs Ganeshi Bai

Gaurav Bhatt Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Prasad Jain Vs Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur

Mohan Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Yadav Vs the State of Rajasthan

Niranjan Agrawal Vs the Registrar of Trade Marks