Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2066 (RAJ)

Narsinghram v. State of Raj.

2006-06-20

R.N.ARVIND

body2006
Honble Arvind, M.—This is revision petition under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 against the judgment dated 20.11.2003 passed by learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali in appeal No.15/2003. 2. Briefly, the facts of this revision are that the patwari halka Hadecha made a report to Naib Tehsildar, Sanchor saying that the petitioner encroached upon 0.04 hectare land of Khasra No.392 for which he has no legal authority. Learned Naib Tehsildar registered a case under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and ordered for petitioner to vacate the land and also imposed a penalty of Rs.50/-. Aggrieved against this order of learned Naib Tehsildar dated 21.1.2003 an appeal was made to District Collector, Jalore who by his order dated 20.5.2003 rejected the appeal. Second appeal was preferred before learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali who also by his order dated 20.11.2003 rejected the appeal. Aggrieved against the order of learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali this is a revision petition. 3. Arguing in support of the petition, the contention of the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner is that the order of learned Naib Tehsildar is not proper and legal. Notice was given to the petitioner and he presented himself also before learned Naib Tehsildar. After that learned Naib Tehsildar was supposed to take evidence of the possession of the petitioner and he was supposed to take recourse to a required judicial process but he did not take recourse to any judicial process and by that he violated the principle of natural justice. As such the order of learned Naib Tehsildar needs to be set aside. He also argued that the petitioner is not cultivating the land but he is using the land in the same manner in which the other persons in the neighbourhood are doing. he is using the land for stocking manure and connected purposes and such a use should be permitted. he also argued that the land is covered by Abadi all around and there are no proper grounds for removing the possession of the petitioner. As such the order of Naib Tehsildar, Distt. Collector and Revenue Appellate Authority should be set aside and petitioner may be permitted to continue in possession of the disputed land. he also argued that the land is covered by Abadi all around and there are no proper grounds for removing the possession of the petitioner. As such the order of Naib Tehsildar, Distt. Collector and Revenue Appellate Authority should be set aside and petitioner may be permitted to continue in possession of the disputed land. The Government has regularised such possessions by is orders from time to time but this was not done in the case of the petitioner, as such all the orders of lower courts are improper and unjust and need to be set aside. 4. Arguing against the petition, the contention of the learned Government Advocate is that the petitioner has failed to raise any bona fide claim over the disputed land and his possession is a clear cut act of trespass on the government land and he has been rightly ordered to be dispossessed. He also argued that the petitioner was heard by learned Naib Tehsildar where he admitted his possession and once the possession is admitted there was no need of any evidence to be collected. He also argued that on the date of decision the petitioner was presented himself in the court and he has signed the proceedings, has proved his presence and he cannot take the lea that it was a violation of natural justice because he made no request for presenting any evidence or reply. The order of learned District Collector is also logical and he has heard the petitioner at length and it has been found that the possession is not old as such there is no need to regularise it. Similarly, learned Revenue Appellate Authority has heard the petitioner at length and he also found that the order of learned Naib Tehsildar was just and proper. He also argued that the orders of all the three courts below have been made legally and properly and there are no grounds for interference in those orders at the stage of revision and the petition needs to be dismissed. 5. Having heard the arguments, having seen the record, I come to the following conclusions:— (a) The petitioner has been given an opportunity of hearing at all the three stages by the courts below but he has failed to produce any evidence or document or authority which could justify his possession. 5. Having heard the arguments, having seen the record, I come to the following conclusions:— (a) The petitioner has been given an opportunity of hearing at all the three stages by the courts below but he has failed to produce any evidence or document or authority which could justify his possession. (b) As discussed by learned District Collector, the possession of the petitioner is not a very old and when the possession is not old it is not covered by any circular of the government for regularisation. It would be relevant to quote the relevant part of the order of learned District Collector, Jalore:— ^^esjs }kjk cgl ij euu fd;k x;k rFkk i=koyh dk v/;;u fd;k x;k v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh esa iVokjh gYdk dh fjiksVZ esa iVokjh gkMspk us vihyk.V dks xzke ykyiqj dk fuoklh gksuk crk;k gSA ftldk izfrjks/k vihyk.V }kjk ugha fd;k x;k gSA ftlls ;g ekuk tk ldrk gS fd vihyk.V xzke gkMspk dk fuoklh u gksdj xzke ykyiqj dk fuoklh gSA iqjkus dCts ds lEcU/k esa vihyk.V ds odhy us ;g crk;k gS fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us mUgsa lquokbZ dk volj ugha fn;k gS ysfdu vihyk.V us bl U;k;ky; ds le{k Hkh iqjkus dCts ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ lcwr izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA bl izdkj izFke rks vihyk.V xzke gkMspk dk fuoklh gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk gS tgka ij vihyk.V us fooknxzLr Hkwfe ij vfrØe.k fd;k gS lkFk gh mDr Hkwfe ij iqjkus dCts ds lEcU/k esa vihyk.V us bl U;k;ky; ds le{k dksbZ lcwr izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA ftlls Li"V gS dh vihyk.V dk fooknxzLr Hkwfe ij iqjkuk dCtk ugha gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us izdj.k nk;j dj fu;ekuqlkj uksfVl tkjh djus ds ipkr~ vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gS tks fof/klEer gSA vr% vihyk.V dh vihy lkjghu gksus ls [kkfjt djus ;ksX; gSA** (c) Even before us the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence in the revision petition and the petitioner has failed to make a mention of any ground on which his possession can be considered for regularisation. His possession is totally an act of trespass and he cannot have a legal sanction to continue his trespass without any proper authority or claim on his part. (d) There are no ground in respect of legality or propriety on the basis on which this Bench can interfere with the orders of the lower courts. His possession is totally an act of trespass and he cannot have a legal sanction to continue his trespass without any proper authority or claim on his part. (d) There are no ground in respect of legality or propriety on the basis on which this Bench can interfere with the orders of the lower courts. The petitioner has been given proper opportunity of hearing at all stages and he himself was present when he was heard by learned Naib Tehsildar but he failed to give any evidence which could justify his trespass. He himself admitted hat he is in possession but has failed to produce any justification for his continuity of possession. After his admission of trespass no extra evidence was needed. 6. In view of the conclusions above, this revision petition is rejected and the orders of learned Naib Tehsildar, Sanchor dated 21.1.2003, learned District Collector, Jalore dated 20.5.2003 and learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali dated 20.11.2003 are upheld. Pronounced.