Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1493 (RAJ)

Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary Home, Government Secretariat, Statue Circle, Jaipur

2013-08-30

RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents may kindly be directed to remove the religious structure situated on public land adjacent to the house of the petitioner. 2. On perusal of the writ petition, it is revealed that as the petitioner is the owner of the adjacent land, he wants that no construction what-so-ever should be made on the land next to his. He has, in the writ petition, tried to emphasise by placing some material that this court should issue direction against the respondents. But it is to be noted that the petitioner has not so far approached any court of law which are available in the normal course including the criminal proceedings against those who are said to be encroaching upon the Government land. The petitioner has also not approached the authorities under The Revenue Act nor under the Jaipur Development Authority Act. 3. After considering the entire material on record, it appears that the petitioner has rushed to this court without availing the other remedies, for the reasons best known to hi. Even otherwise, adjudication of the matter of present nature does involve disputed questions of facts and it would be more appropriate to decide such matter after recording of evidence in the normal course. Even the forum given under the Jaipur Development Authority Act has not been invoked by the petitioner. Only a few representations have been given by the petitioner and thereafter he has come to this court. It appears to be a dispute between two neighbours which has been carried to this Court under writ jurisdiction. 4. After considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the present case is not of one where discretion under the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be exercised despite of other available remedies to the petitioner. 5. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. 6. Consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition itself, the stay application and other applications are also dismissed.Writ Petition & Stay Application both Dismissed. *******