Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 220 (RAJ)

Satya Narain v. State of Raj.

2016-02-05

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT: Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to question the validity of notice dated 22.7.2015 (Annex.4) issued by the respondents under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ('the Act') and seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in putting red 'X' mark over the construction in question while declaring the same to be encroachment be declared illegal. 2. The petitioner is in possession of land comprised in Khasara No. 1058 and Khasara No. 1060 and has constructions over the said land. 3. A notice under Section 91 of the Act dated 22.7.2015 was issued by Tesildar, Kapasan District Chittorgarh alleging that petitioner was in possession of land comprised in Khasara No. 669 and sought removal of the petitioner from the said 'Araji'. 4. A reply was filed by the petitioner, inter alia, indicating that he was not in possession of land comprised in Khasara No. 669 and was in possession of land comprised in Khasara Nos. 1058 and 1060. It is alleged that though, the proceedings under Section 91 of the Act have not proceeded further, the respondents have started demolishing the construction existing; the respondents have already demolished construction in 'Araji' No.671 and are likely to do the same qua the petitioner's construction, which is not in Khasara No. 669. 5. It is submitted that petitioner has again made representation to the Tehsildar regarding the said aspect and has called upon the authorities to first determine the location of petitioner's construction as to whether the same is within Khasara No. 669 or in Khasara No.1058 and 1060 and then take action. However, the respondents without determining the said aspect are bent upon demolishing the petitioner's construction. With the said submissions, above prayers as noticed hereinbefore have been made. 6. Admittedly, when the proceedings have been initiated by the Tehsildar under Section 91 of the Act alleging petitioner's encroachment over Araji No. 669, and petitioner has already respond to the same, there is no reason for the respondents to demolish the construction/dispossess the petitioner without determining the said notice under Section 91 of the Act. The petition appears to have been filed based on apprehension on account of the demolition, which have taken place in Khasara No. 671 regarding which, the facts are not available on record. 7. The petition appears to have been filed based on apprehension on account of the demolition, which have taken place in Khasara No. 671 regarding which, the facts are not available on record. 7. In that view of the matter, though no interference is called for in the present writ petition. The petitioner would be at liberty to file a detailed representation in this regard giving out all the facts and circumstances and take the pleas which are sought to be raised in the present writ petition before the Tehsildar and it would be required of the Tehsildar to first determine the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 91 of the Act and based on his decision, to take any action against the petitioner, if deemed proper in the circumstances of the case. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.