Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1877 (RAJ)

Ashok Kumar Rana v. State of Rajasthan

2015-11-06

SANGEET LODHA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of the proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioner under Section 177 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act"). 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner purchased agriculture land ad measuring 1-02 bighas comprising khasra no. 131 in 0-01 bighas comprising khasra no. 134 situated at village-Hetamji, Tehsil-Abu Road, District - Sirohi, from the khatedar tenant of the land Smt. Dhapu, vide registered sale deed dated 18.12.12 and accordingly, the land was mutated in the revenue record in his name. According to the petitioner, at the time of purchase of the land in question, a Store Room constructed in the area measuring 600 sq. ft. was already in existence. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Patwari, Mount Abu reported to the Sub Divisional Officer (SD0), Mount Abu, regarding illegal construction raised over the land in question and accordingly, the SDO, Mount Abu has directed Municipal Board, Mount Abu to remove the illegal construction and has also directed the Tehsildar, Abu Road to initiate proceedings under Section 177 of the Act. Pursuant thereto, the Tehsildar, Abu Road has issued a notice under Section 177 of the Act to the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not raised any new construction over the land in question and therefore, the notice issued initiating the proceedings for ejectment, is absolutely without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that as per report of the Patwari dated 28.8.15, the existence of new construction is shown whereas, vide report dated 21.8.15, it is reported that the illegal construction earlier raised was removed, however, the petitioner herein has raised new construction. Learned counsel submitted that being khatedar tenant of the land in question, the petitioner is entitled to make improvement over the land to the extent permissible under Section 67 of the Act and therefore, the action of the respondents in initiating the proceedings for ejectment is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 5. As per report of the Patwari placed on record, it appears that the illegal construction raised over the land in question was removed and thereafter, a farm house has been constructed over the land in question. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 5. As per report of the Patwari placed on record, it appears that the illegal construction raised over the land in question was removed and thereafter, a farm house has been constructed over the land in question. Indisputably, pursuant to the directions issued by the SDO, Mount Abu, the Tehsildar has not attempted to remove the construction straight away rather, he has issued notice to the petitioner initiating proceedings under Section 177 of the Act. It is true that by virtue of proviso to subsection (1) of Section 177, any improvement made over the land in accordance with the provisions of the Act, cannot be a ground for ejectment. But then, a perusal of the material on record reveals that the action is sought to be taken inasmuch as, the petitioner has illegally constructed Farm House over the land in question defying the ban imposed on raising new construction in the area in question. Be that as it may, if the petitioner disputes the factual position as mentioned in the notice, nothing prevented him from making the submission in this regard before the Tehsildar, Abu Road in response to the notice issued. In any case, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case noticed herein above, the proceedings initiated by the Tehsildar, Abu Road, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Obviously, the appropriate proceedings shall be taken by the Tehsildar, Abu Road after consideration of the submissions, if any, made by the petitioner in response to the notice. Moreover, if any adverse order directing ejectment of the petitioner from the land in question is passed by the Tehsildar, Abu Road in the proceedings initiated as aforesaid, the remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under the Act. 6. In this view of the matter, no case for interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 7. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******