Dismissed

Santosh Singh Andanr v. B O R Ajmer Andors

Rajasthan HC23 Sept 2024CW/5517/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order regarding land possession, the High Court held that the land falls under Forest Department jurisdiction per a 1964 gazette notification. Finding no perversity or jurisdictional error in lower courts that affirmed dismissal of the suit, the writ was dismissed under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as it is bereft of merits.

Santosh Singh Andanr Vs B O R Ajmer Andors — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:40445]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5517/2009

¶4

Santosh Singh Son Of Shri Prakash Singh, Village Nayagaon Jagdishpura, Tehsil Kishanganj, Distt. Baran

¶5

Shivdev Singh Son Of Shri Prakash Singh, Village Nayagaon Jagdishpura, Tehsil Kishanganj, Distt. Baran

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Board Of Revenue Through The Registrar, Rajasthan, Ajmer

¶9

Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota

¶10

Additional Collector And Magistrate, Shahbad, Distt. Baran

¶11

Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Department, Baran

¶12

Ranger, Forest Department, Kishanganj, Baran

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Jain for Mr. Deepak Asopa For Respondent(s) :

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶16

Order

¶17

23/09/2024

¶18

In the instant writ petition, notice to the respondents was issued vide order dated 21.07.2010, but thereafter, petitioners have not remained serious to effect service of notice on respondents, nor the requisite PF and notices have been filed.

¶19

In such view, the writ petition has been heard for admission on merits.

¶20

It appears that petitioners filed a revenue suit under Section 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 wayback in the year 1992 seeking to restrain the respondent-Forest Department not to interfere in possession of the land in question of Khasra No.33 at

[2024:RJ-JP:40445]

[CW-5517/2009]

(2 of 3)

Village Jagdishpura. In the suit, Forest Department filed reply that the land in question as per the Gazette Notification dated 17.06.1964 has come within jurisdiction and territory of Forest Department, therefore, petitioners cannot claim any right, merely on the basis of mutation enteries. The revenue suit was dismissed on merits vide judgment dated 07.07.2000 (Ann.8).

¶25

Petitioners preferred appeal against the judgment dated 07.07.2000 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was allowed vide judgment dated 27.01.2001, but on filing second appeal by the Forest Department, the Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 21.01.2009 has clearly observed that the land in question is reserve land of Forest Department and therefore, the Revenue Appellate Authority has committed illegality and jurisdictional error in decreeing the petitioners' suit and finally the Board of Revenue set aside the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority dated 27.01.2001 and affirmed the judgment passed by Additional District Collector and Magistrate, Shahbad dated 07.07.2000 vide its judgment dated 21.01.2009, whereagainst the instant writ petition has been filed.

¶26

Petitioners are not able to counter the factual aspect which has been taken note of by the Board of Revenue as also by the Additional District Collector and Magistrate, Shahbad that by virtue of Gazette Notification dated 17.06.1964, the land in question is reserved for the Forest Department.

¶27

In such view, the revenue suit for claiming permanent injunction against the Forest Department, filed by petitioners has rightly been dismissed by the Additional District Collector and

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:40445]

[CW-5517/2009]

Magistrate, Shahbad and the judgment has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue vide order impugned dated 21.01.2009.

¶32

This Court does not find any perversity in the final order of Board of Revenue dated 21.01.2009, nor the order has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice and suffers from patent error or any defect or in violation of the settled proposition of law. Therefore, the order impugned does not warrant any interference by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

As a result, the writ petition is bereft of merits and same is hereby dismissed.

¶34

All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

¶35

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶36

Sachin/RONAK JAIMAN/55

Santosh Singh Andanr v. B O R Ajmer Andors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Singh Andanr v. B O R Ajmer Andors

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

Mohan Singh Son of Shri Babudan Singh Alias Pabudan Singh (Deleted) Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Surendra Singh Gurjar Son of Shri Man Singh Gurjar Vs the National Institute of Ayurved

Vikram Singh Shekhawat S/O Shri Bajrang Singh Shekawat Vs State of Rajasthan

District Cricket Association, Dholpur Vs Municipal Council, Dholpur

Manoj Sainy S/O Bhanwarlal Vs Mahesh Kumar S/O Puranmal

Manoj Kumar Dixit S/O Shri Ramdayal Sharma Vs the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board