Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 35 (RAJ)

Rupa Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2006-01-04

GOVIND MATHUR

body2006
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.- By order dated 111.1982 the Gram Panchayat, Kalbas (Churu) instructed the petitioners to remove encroachment from the public land and also imposed penalty for making encroachment on public land. The petitioners gave challenge to the order dated 111.1982 by way of filing an appeal before the Panchayat Samiti, Taranagar (Churu). The Administrative Committee of the Panchayat Samiti by its order dated 21.06.1988/29.04.1988 dismissed the appeal with an order to remove encroachment made by the petitioners upon urban land within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat, Kalbas. The Administrative Standing Committee, while rejecting the appeal under the order dated 21.06.1988 relied upon an inspection report dated 28.04.1988. A copy of the inspection report dated 28.04.1988 is available on record as Annexure-7. The order passed by the Panchayat Samiti, Taranagar bears two dates of Judgment , those are 29.04.1988 and 21.06.1988, therefore, both are referred in this order. 2. Being aggrieved by order dated 29.04.1988/21.06.1988 the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Collector, Churu which also came to be rejected by order dated 08.08.1995. The Collector, Churu while rejecting revision petition held that the petitioners are having encroachment on a precious land of Gram Panchayat as well as on public way which is required to be removed. Being aggrieved by the orders of Gram Panchayat, Kalbas, Panchayat Samiti, Churu and the Collector, Churu instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioners. 3. It is contended by Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have not made any encroachment on panchayat land. The land in their possession which is treated as encroachment by Gram Panchayat is under their holding from last more than 50 years. It is also contended by Counsel for the petitioners that no encroachment on a public way as averred by the Collector, Churu in the order dated 08.08.1995 was made. It is emphasised on behalf of the petitioners that the inspection report Annexure-7 was not prepared by any committee but was prepared by Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti without inspecting the site and no information was ever given by the Panchayat Samiti to the petitioners with regard to inspection which is said to be made on 28.04.1988. 4. It is emphasised on behalf of the petitioners that the inspection report Annexure-7 was not prepared by any committee but was prepared by Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti without inspecting the site and no information was ever given by the Panchayat Samiti to the petitioners with regard to inspection which is said to be made on 28.04.1988. 4. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of respondent Gram Panchayat stating therein that the proceedings to remove encroachment made by the petitioners were initiated after getting an inspection report by three panchas of Gram Panchayat, Kalbas and after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to state their version before Gram Panchayat. No reply to the writ petition is filed on behalf of Panchayat Samiti and the Collector, Churu. 5. Heard Counsel for the parties. 6. The order passed by Gram Panchayat, Kalbas dated 111.1982 is essentially based on an inspection report which is referred in the order sheet dated 210.1982 (Annexure R/1). Copy of the inspecstion report referred in the order sheet dated 210.1982 is not placed on record by the respondents. The Panchayat Samiti, while affirming the order passed by Gram Panchayat dated 111.1982 relied upon an inspection report dated 28.04.1988. The inspection report dated 28.04.1988 is available on record as Annexure-7. From perusal of inspection dated 28.04.1988 it does not reveal that the inspection was made in presence of the petitioners. The inspection report though refers about statements of neighbours and other residents of village Kalbas but no particulars of those persons are given in the report. In fact the inspection report Annexure-7 lacks necessary requirements for making a fair inspection. An inspection report should always mention names of reliable persons in presence of whom the inspection was made and also required to refer the presence of person/party effected, if called. 7. In present case a specific contention of Counsel for the petitioners is that no information was given to the petitioners with regard to inspection said to be made on 28.04.1988. The petitioners in fact have all doubts about factual existence of inspection said to be made on 28.04.1988. It is also pertinent to mention that the order passed by the standing committee of the Panchayat Samiti bears two dates, those are 29.04.1988 and 21.06.1988 and the Counsel appearing for Gram Panchayat Shri, B.N. Kalla failed to give any justification for that. It is also pertinent to mention that the order passed by the standing committee of the Panchayat Samiti bears two dates, those are 29.04.1988 and 21.06.1988 and the Counsel appearing for Gram Panchayat Shri, B.N. Kalla failed to give any justification for that. The Counsel for the State learned Deputy Government Advocate also failed to point out any reason for mentioning these two dates in the order passed by the standing committee of the Panchayat Samiti. The order passed by the Collector mentions that the petitioners have encroached a public way, however, the inspection report which was also perused by the Collector nowhere mentions about the encroachment on a public way. Even the order passed by the Gram Panchayat and Panchayat Samiti does not say anything about encroachment of the petitioners on public way. In view of it the finding given by the Collector, Churu with regard to encroachment of the petitioners on public way is having no foundation. 8. From narration of facts above, it is apparent that no copy of inspection report on basis of which Gram Panchayat initiated proceedings against the petitioners to remove encroachment was given to the petitioners, the inspection said to be made by the Inspection Committee of the Gram Panchayat on 28.04.1988 is extremely doubtful as it does not bear signatures of the members of the Inspection Committee and also not bear names of the neighbours and other residents of village Kalbas, whose statements were said to be recorded by the Inspection Committee. It is also apparent that no information was given to the petitioners with regard to making inspection of the site on 28.04.1988. It further appears that copy of the inspection report was also not given to the petitioners. There is no foundation in order of the Collector on basis of which he reached at the conclusion that the petitioners made encroachment on public way. 9. In view of discussion made above I am of the considered opinion that the proceedings to remove encroachment said to be made by the petitioners lacks fairness. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned dated 111.1982 passed by Gram Panchayat, Kalbas (Churu), dated 29.04.1988/21.06.1988 passed by Panchayat Samiti, Taranagar (Churu) and dated 08.08.1995 passed by Collector, Churu are hereby quashed. 10. No order as to costs.