Disposed

Devi Singh v. District Collector

Rajasthan HC6 Aug 2024CW/5997/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners sought injunction against dislodging land and directed authorities to accept their application for correction of mutation. The Court held that since an application under Section 136 of the Land Revenue Act had been entertained, the matter was not justiciable in writ proceedings. The petition was disposed of, directing authorities to consider the statutory remedy.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; Status quo maintained for 7 days; Petitioners directed to pursue remedy under Section 136 of the Land Revenue Act.

Devi Singh Vs District Collector — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:32525]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5997/2024

¶4

Devi Singh S/o Nain Singh, Aged About 62 Years, 321, Sonigaro

¶5

Ka Bas, Guda Bheem Singh Marg, Sawalta, District Pali. Himmat Singh S/o Nain Singh, Aged About 60 Years, 321,

¶6

Sonigaro Ka Bas, Guda Bheem Singh Marg, Sawalta, District Pali.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

District Collector, Pali

¶10

Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rani, District Pali.

¶11

Tehsildar, Tehsil Rani, District Pali

¶12

Shri Aai Mata Ji Temple Trust, Bandher, Bilara through its Administrator Shri Bharat Prasad Singh S/o Shri Murlimanohar Singh aged about 33 years.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. CS Kotwani
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Abhinav Jain

¶15

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

06/08/2024

I.A.01/2024:-

For the reasons stated and after hearing learned counsel for the

¶20

parties, the application seeking impleadment of applicant as party respondent in the writ petition is allowed.

¶21

Shri Aai Mata Ji Temple is hereby impleaded as party

¶22

respondent No.4 in the writ petition.

¶23

Amended cause title be filed within a week.

¶24

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5997/2024:-

¶25

By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed

[2024:RJ-JD:32525]

[CW-5997/2024]

(2 of 4)

thus:-

(i) The respondents may kindly be restrained from taking illegal and arbitrary dislodging the land question situated at Khasra No.214 (old) 199 (new) admeasuring 26 Bigha 16 Biswa land at Revenue village Alani.

¶31

(ii) Or in the alternative, it is most respectfully submitted that respondents may kindly be directed to accept the application of humble petitioners for adjudication under section 136 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 and till that the application is decided, the respondents may kindly be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of humble petitioners over the land in question.

¶32

(iii) Any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble High Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.

¶33

Mr. Abhinav Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.4

¶34

at the outset submitted that the present writ is in the nature of revenue suit. He added that if the petitioners in any manner feel aggrieved of the mutation entry made in favour of respondent No.4, they should have taken appropriate remedies available under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act/Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and the writ petition cannot be entertained.

¶35

At this juncture, Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners came to learn about the mutation entry or change in the revenue record only when

[2024:RJ-JD:32525]

[CW-5997/2024]

(3 of 4)

the SDO concerned approached them for dispossession whereafter, an application under section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act was filed but the Revenue Authorities were not even registering the application/petition for correction of revenue record, for which the petitioners were constrained to approach writ Court.

¶40

It is to be noted that the present writ petition was filed on 05.04.2024, whereafter, the competent authority entertained the application filed under section 136 of the Land revenue Act and such fact has been brought to the notice of the Court by the respondent No.3, when interim order was passed.

¶41

Be that as it may. Since, the petitioners have already preferred an application under section 136 of the Land Revenue Act for correction in the mutation entry, this Court cannot continue with the present proceedings. Writ proceedings are, therefore, closed.

¶42

The present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶43

Needless to observe that in case, the petitioners intend to avail the appropriate remedy available to them in law, seeking injunction or otherwise, the revenue authorities shall consider petitioners’ request in accordance with law, without being influenced by the fact that the present writ petition has been dismissed.

¶44

The respondents are directed to maintain status quo for a period of seven days from today, whereafter, the interim order (if any) passed by the Revenue Authorities shall prevail.

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:32525]

[CW-5997/2024]

Stay application also stands disposed of.

¶49

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶50

320-raksha/-

Devi Singh v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi Singh v. District Collector

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

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Gaveesh Bhatt Vs Government of Rajasthan

Veer Teja Mahila College Vs Maharshi Dayanad Saraswati University, Ajmer

Ridhi Sidhi Home Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagwana Ram @ Ramesh Vs State of Rajasthan