Allowed

Ramlal Son of Shri Hukma v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Sept 2024CW/11588/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order for encroachment removal based on a Collector's order that was subsequently set aside. The Court held that since the foundational order was quashed without a stay, the encroachment order lacked basis and was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Samiti for removal of encroachments set aside with liberty to respondents to proceed in accordance with law.

Ramlal Son of Shri Hukma Vs the State of Rajasthan — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:37855]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11588/2022

¶4

Ramlal Son Of Shri Hukma, Aged About 76 Years, Resident Of Majra Dohriya (Village Mundoti), Gram Panchayat Aakodiya, Tehsil Arain, District Ajmer.

¶5

Gheesalal Son Of Shri Ugma, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of Majra Dohriya (Village Mundoti), Gram Panchayat Aakodiya, Tehsil Arain, District Ajmer.

¶6

Ramgopal Son Of Shri Ramkaran, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Majra Dohriya (Village Mundoti), Gram Panchayat Aakodiya, Tehsil Arain, District Ajmer.

¶7

Kishanlal Son Of Shri Ramkaran, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Majra Dohriya (Village Mundoti), Gram Panchayat Aakodiya, Tehsil Arain, District Ajmer.

¶8

Panchu Son Of Shri Ramkaran, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Majra Dohriya (Village Mundoti), Gram Panchayat Aakodiya, Tehsil Arain, District Ajmer.

¶9

Ranglal Son Of Shri Hukma, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of Majra Dohriya (Village Mundoti), Gram Panchayat Aakodiya, Tehsil Arain, District Ajmer.

¶10

Nathu Son Of Shri Sheo Chand, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of Majra Dohriya (Village Mundoti), Gram Panchayat Aakodiya, Tehsil Arain, District Ajmer.

¶11

Radha Mohan Son Of Shri Sheo Chand, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Majra Dohriya (Village Mundoti), Gram Panchayat Aakodiya, Tehsil Arain, District Ajmer.

¶12

Shivraj Son Of Shri Sheo Chand, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Majra Dohriya (Village Mundoti), Gram Panchayat Aakodiya, Tehsil Arain, District Ajmer.

¶13

Rameshwar Son Of Shri Sheo Chand, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Majra Dohriya (Village Mundoti), Gram Panchayat Aakodiya, Tehsil Arain, District Ajmer.

¶14

Harji Son Of Shri Sheo Chand, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Majra Dohriya (Village Mundoti), Gram Panchayat Aakodiya, Tehsil Arain, District Ajmer.

¶15

----Petitioners

¶16

Versus

¶17

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The

(2 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:37855]

[CW-11588/2022]

Government, Department Of Revenue, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶22

The District Collector, Ajmer.

¶23

The Sub-Division Officer, Arain, District Ajmer.

¶24

The Tehsildar, Tehsil Arain, District Ajmer.

¶25

Gram Panchayat Akodiya, Panchayat Samiti Arain, Tehsil Arain, District Ajmer Throught Its Sarpanch.

¶26

The Zila Jan Abhav Abhiyog And Zila Satarkata Samiti, Ajmer Through Its Secretary (Additional Collector-Ist), Ajmer.

¶27

----Respondents

¶28

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Kishore Saksena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajat Ranjan Mr. Akshat Chaudhary Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC.

¶29

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

¶30

Order

¶31

06/09/2024

¶32

This petition is filed aggrieved by order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the Tehsildar for removal of the encroachment in Khasra Nos.864/684, 853/684 and 871/684 of Village-Mundoti and minutes of the meeting of Zila Jan Abhav Abhiyog & Zila Satarkata Samiti, Ajmer (for short ‘Samiti’) convened on 19.05.2022.

¶33

Brief facts as pleaded are that during the proceedings of reserving the ‘Sawaichak’ for ‘Charagaha’ it revealed that the petitioners had encroached the land and are in possession of the land situated in Khasra No.684/29. The Collector-Ajmer passed order dated 26.06.2013 under Section 92 of The Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for shore the Act’) whereby out of total land of 689 bigha, situated at village-’Mundoti, 591 bigha was reserved

[2024:RJ-JP:37855]

[CW-11588/2022]

(3 of 4)

for ‘Charagaha’ and remaining 97 bigha was retained as ‘Sawaichak land’. The Revenue Appellate Authority in appeal filed by the petitioners, vide order dated 01.10.2014 set aside the order dated 26.06.2013 with the direction for conducting fresh survey. The order of the Appellate Authority was challenged by the Gram Panchayat before the Board of Revenue. The appeal was accepted and the matter was remitted back to the Collector, Ajmer to pass fresh orders, after seeking a factual report with regard to the possession of the petitioners. In persuance to the remand, the Collector passed order dated 11.01.2016. As per pleadings, the pre-requisite of seeking fresh factual report was not undertaken by the Collector.

¶38

The revision filed by petitioner against the order passed of the Collector was allowed and the matter was remanded back to decide in view of the observations made. The order of the revisional authority is subject matter of SBCWP No.16026/2018 before this Court. The Gram Panchayat on the basis of the order passed by the Collector dated 11.01.2016 approached the Samiti and the order for removal of encroachments was passed. Hence, the present petition.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of the Collector no longer exist having been set aside in revision. It is argued that in the writ petition filed by the Gram Panchayat status-quo was ordered to be maintained and operation of the revisional order was not stayed.

¶40

Learned counsel for respondent No.5 contends that the Revisional Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision. Further that the petitioners are admittedly the encroachers.

¶41

[2024:RJ-JP:37855]

¶42

[CW-11588/2022]

¶43

The issue as to whether the petitioners are encroachers or not, need not to be dilated at this stage in this petition. The fact remains that the basis for the Samiti to proceed against the petitioners was the order of the Collector dated 11.01.2016 which was set aside in revision and the operation of the order has not been stayed by this Court. The foundation for passing the order by the Samiti for removing of encroachments does not exist. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside with the liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law at the appropriate stage.

¶44

The petition is allowed.

¶45

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶46

Riya/Sunita/33

¶47

Reportable Yes

Ramlal Son of Shri Hukma v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramlal Son of Shri Hukma v. the 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

Veer Bhan Singh Vs State Education Departmentors

Indian Red Crose Society Vs U O I and Ors.

Shivani Saini Vs State Home Departmentors

Jagdish S/O Late Nathuram Vs Kanhaiyalal S/O Late Shri Syolal Urf Syonarayan

Ramji Lal Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Azizur Rehman (Since Deceased) Vs the Board of Revenue