Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 583 (RAJ)

Shankar Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-21

PRAKASH TATIA

body2005
Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved against the allotment of land in favour of the respondent No. 5 on the ground that petitioner was in possession of a part of the land allotted to the respondent No. 5 since last 40 years. 2. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 was allotted the land of Khasara No. 2740 measuring 1 Bigha out of the total land 1.16 Bighas. The petitioner is claiming his possession over the land of the said Khasra measuring 138.88 Sq. Yards. It is submitted that though the petitioner was in long possession but now the land has been allotted to the respondent No. 5, therefore, the petitioner may be allotted or may be given land in regularisation in the same khasra to the extent of measurement which was in possession of the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner to avoid controversy the petitioner is seeking the relief which can be granted by the Government as there are schemes of regularisation of the old possession. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that there is no illegality in the order of allotment of land to the petitioner. The Government has already passed the order of approval in the year 2001 and the allotment order itself has been issued by the District Collector, Sirohi to the petitioner in the year 2002 vide Annexure-7. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no right, title or interest in the land in dispute, therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioners possession is disputed and the petitioners parentise is also not telling with the name of the person, who was claiming possession over a small piece of land of Khasara No. 2740. 5. I considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is clear that the petitioner himself is not claiming his title over the land but he is claiming allotment of land on the basis of long possession. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition as mere possession that too of tresspasser cannot culminate into title of the Government land in such a short period. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition as mere possession that too of tresspasser cannot culminate into title of the Government land in such a short period. The petitioner if can claim any alternate land on the basis of his possession, he may approach the Revenue Authorities and the Revenue Authority may allot the land to the petitioner if he is eligible person for allotment of land in any scheme or under any Rules. 7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is hereby dismissed.