Dismissed

Mahi, Kadana and Anaya Visthapit P. Samiti v. State of Rajsthan

Rajasthan HC18 Nov 2024WRW/137/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a review petition challenging a 2017 order in a public interest litigation concerning rehabilitation of displaced persons. The court refused the request to review the order, noting no objection regarding publication clarity was raised earlier, and directed respondents to consider future applications for due compensation.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mahi, Kadana and Anaya Visthapit P. Samiti Vs… — Environment and Pollution | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:46534-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 137/2019

¶4

Mahi, Kadana & Anaya Visthapit Poonarwas Samiti, District Banswara through its Sanrakshak Shri Veer Singh S/o Shri Heera lal aged about 33 years (FAX No.NIL, Mobile Phone No.9602220356 and Email Address: Nil).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Revenue,

¶8

Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The District Collector, Banswara.

¶9

The District Collector, Dungarpur.

¶10

The Chief Engineer, Mahi Sagar, Pariyojana (Rehabilitation), Banswara.

¶11

The Director, Resettlement, Kadana Project, Banswara.

¶12

Chief Conservator Of Forest, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶13

Sub-Divisional Officer, Banswara.

¶14

Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghatol, District Banswara.

¶15

Sub-Divisional Officer, Bagidora, District Banswara.

¶16

Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadi, District Banswara.

¶17

Sub-Divisional Officer, Kushalgarh, District Banswara.

¶18

Sub-Divisional Officer, Sagwara, District Dungarpur.

¶19

Tehsildar, Banswara.

¶20

Tehsildar, Ghatol, District Banswara.

¶21

Tehsildar, Bagidora, District Banswara.

¶22

Tehsildar, Gadi, District Banswara.

¶23

Tehsildar, Kushalgarh, District Banswara. 18. Tehsildar, Sagwara, District Dungarpur.

¶24

----Respondents

¶25

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravindra Jala for Mr. S.S Ladrecha, AAG

¶26

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA

¶27

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order

¶28

18/11/2024

¶29

Heard.

¶30

A prayer for review of order dated 03.10.2017 has been made mainly on the submission that though the order was passed on 04.08.2017 inviting applications from those who could not

¶31

[2024:RJ-JD:46534-DB]

¶32

[WRW-137/2019]

¶33

(2 of 3)

¶34

apply for appropriate rehabilitation measures, in addition to 1729 applications already received, when paper publication was made on 05.08.2017, it did not clearly state that the invitation of applications is in addition to 1729 applications already received. Rather it is contended that the notification give impression as if the scrutiny was to be made only in respect of those 1729 applications. This aspect was not considered by this Court, therefore, order may be appropriately reviewed.

¶35

We have gone through the order dated 03.10.2017. In para 6 of the order this court has observed with regard to publicity made as directed vide order dated 04.08.2017. The order does not show that any submission was made before the Court at that time that the publication was not in accordance with the order dated 04.08.2017.

¶36

If it was the case of the petitioner that the order of the Court was not complied with, even contempt petition could have been filed and could be brought to the notice of this Court. 5. At this stage, we are not inclined to review the order so as to give rise to new obligations on the part of the respondents. In any case, the order was passed in public interest litigation filed by the petitioner association. Earlier 1729 applications were submitted. The order under review shows that many other applications were also filed and in some cases repetition was also found.

¶37

Be that as it may, all those persons whose land submerged in the dam projects, as referred to in this case, were entitled to appropriate compensation and rehabilitation as per the scheme prevailing and applied to other displaced persons. It shall always be open for the individual or the petitioner association to bring to

¶38

(3 of 3) [WRW-137/2019]

¶39

[2024:RJ-JD:46534-DB]

¶40

the notice of the respondent authorities the names, if any, of those displaced persons who earlier have not applied for appropriate compensation and rehabilitation as per the available scheme. If that is brought to the notice of the authorities, it goes without saying that their applications would also be scrutinized and whatever is found due and payable under the law, either by way of compensation or by way of rehabilitation, shall be extended to them.

¶41

Subject to aforesaid observation no further order in this petition is required to be passed.

¶42

The petition is accordingly disposed off.

¶43

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ

¶44

50-divyaP/-

Mahi, Kadana and Anaya Visthapit P. Samiti v. State of Rajsthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mahi, Kadana and Anaya Visthapit P. Samiti v. State of Rajsthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Auto Center, Nokha Vs Sri Kant

Mirki Vs Sh. Dasrath Singh

Sh. Madan Singh Vs Shri Babu Giri

Saroj Dhaka Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Iqbal Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan

Mrs. Rekha Sisodiya Vs Marwar Muslim Educational and Welfare Society