Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 325 (RAJ)

Mahant Lehar Giri v. State of Rajasthan

2014-01-30

AMITAVA ROY, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.9.2013 passed in SBCWP No. 1791/2008 and the order dated 22.10.2013 rendered in S.B. Civil Review Petition No.136/2013. The writ petitioner is in appeal. 3. The appellant/writ petitioner's pleaded case in short is that he had established a 'Gaushala' over the land measuring 85.07 bighas in Khasra No. 784 and 33.05 bighas in Khasra No.785 situated in village Vasan in District Sirohi. He has also constructed a temple thereon. On 22.3.2001, he submitted an application under Rule 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land to Gaushala) Rules, 1957 (for short hereinafter referred-to as "the Rules of 1957") before the District Collector, Sirohi for allotment of the aforesaid land to the 'Gaushala'. According to him, on his application, the jurisdictional Patwari inspected the site and affirmed that the 'Gaushala' was functional and that the land was fit therefor. He also confirmed the existence of the temple. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Vasan also issued a No Objection Certificate. He has, however, disclosed that prior to all these developments in the year 1996, a proceeding under Section 90A/91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956") was initiated against him asking him to vacate the land in question. He stated that as required, he deposited the fine for his possession over the said land and also realised the proceeds of the auction sale of his crops standing thereon. While the matter rested at that, in the third week of January, 2008, the Tehsildar, Reodar, came to the site and asked him to vacate the land on the ground that the same would be allotted to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Abu Road for establishment of sub yard. After having unsuccessfully pleaded with the respondents, he approached this court seeking an appropriate writ to interfere with the letters dated 10.1.2008 & 27.2.2008 pertaining to the allotment of the land in favour of respondent No.6. 4. After having unsuccessfully pleaded with the respondents, he approached this court seeking an appropriate writ to interfere with the letters dated 10.1.2008 & 27.2.2008 pertaining to the allotment of the land in favour of respondent No.6. 4. The respondents No. 1 to 4 in reply, in substance, pleaded that in the proceedings initiated against the appellant/writ petitioner under Section 91 of the Act, he was held to be a trespasser on the land in question and pursuant to the order dated 10.10.2007 passed in Case No.54/2007, he was evicted therefrom and his standing crops were put to auction. While endorsing the impugned action of theirs, they contended that the appellant was a trespasser on the Govt. land and, therefore, had no right to claim allotment thereof. 5. The respondent No. 6 while reiterating the pleaded stand of the official respondents, added that the appellant/writ petitioner had been rightly removed from the land in question. 6. The learned Single Judge on a due consideration of the pleaded facts and the documents on record and noticing in particular the determination made in the proceeding under Section 91 of the Act that the appellant/writ petitioner was a trespasser and that he had been removed from the land on 26.10.2007, dismissed the writ petition by the judgment and order dated 18.9.2013. A review application was thereafter filed by the appellant/writ petitioner asserting that the order dated 10.10.2007 passed in Case No.54/2007 under Section 91 of the Act, notwithstanding, he continued to remain in possession of the land and had, in terms thereof, deposited the amount of fine as required of him. Claiming that his possession of the land was valid, he sought a review of the judgment and order dated 18.9.2013, which was rejected vide order dated 22.10.2013. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has insisted that as he is in possession of the land in question and running a 'Gaushala' as on date and that the temple thereon is also in existence, he has a preferential right to be allotted the same and, thus, the decision to the contrary is void ab initio. Learned counsel has, therefore, urged that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is apparently erroneous calling for interference with the decisions impugned. 8. Learned counsel has, therefore, urged that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is apparently erroneous calling for interference with the decisions impugned. 8. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant and on a consideration of the materials on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders assailed in the instant appeal. Noticeably, the appellant/writ petitioner has not denied the initiation of a proceeding under Section 91 of the Act and the order dated 10.10.2007 passed in Case No.54/2007. A bare perusal of the said order reveals that thereby he was held to be an unauthorized occupant of the land in question and was directed to be dispossessed therefrom. The fine ordered to be paid, even if paid, would not validate his possession. Even assuming, thus, that the appellant/writ petitioner had deposited the amount of fine, as ordered, his possession held to be that of a trespasser, does by no means become legal thereby. Apart therefrom, as is also evident from the eviction memo dated 26.10.2007, the appellant on that date was removed from the land in question and the possession thereof was taken over by the concerned revenue authority. 9. The plea of the appellant/writ petitioner in his review application that he continued to be in possession of the land and that the inspection report was prepared by the Patwari of Reodar to this effect, per se in our opinion does not render his possession legal in the backdrop of the determination made by a competent court in Case No.54/2007. On being queried by us, learned counsel for the appellant in course of the arguments did candidly admit that the determination made in this proceedings against the appellant/writ petitioner, has not been assailed by him in any higher forum and that the same subsists as on date. In the above view of the matter, even if it is presumed that the appellant continues to be in possession of the land, he has to be construed in law to be a trespasser thereon. Axiomatically, therefore, the decision of the concerned authorities to allot the said land to the respondent No.6 ipso facto cannot be held to be illegal, arbitrary or unjust. We are in respectful agreement with the determination made by the learned Single Judge. 10. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The stay petition too, stands dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******