Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2239 (RAJ)

Ghasiram v. State of Rajasthan

2017-10-25

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. These two writ petitions are preferred by the petitioners seeking reliefs for quashing of the orders dated 22.03.2016 passed in Case No. 105/2016 and 95/2016, whereby the Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur dropped the proceedings against the petitioners under section 92-A of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act of 1959’ hereinafter) while observing that the encroachment of the petitioners over the land belonging to the Urban Improvement Trust has already been removed on 21.03.2016, therefore, no further proceedings are required to undertake in the matter. The petitioners are also seeking direction to the respondent-UIT Udaipur for allotment/regularisation of the land in their favour, which they are claiming that the same is in possession of them from last so many years. 2. The case as set up by the petitioners is that the land of Khasra No. 1045 of village Debari, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur is in their possession since decades. It is also claimed that the petitioners have constructed the house on the said land and also got electricity connection to it. It is claimed that earlier the land was in the name of the State and at that time, the Tehsildar, Girwa, District Udaipur issued notices to them under section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956' hereinafter) from time to time and this fact itself shows that the petitioners are in possession of the land of Khasra No. 1045 of village Debari since long time. 3. It is further claimed that later on land of Khasra No. 1045 of village Debari and other lands were transferred to the UIT, Udaiur and the UIT, Udaipur vide advertisement dated 12.11.2012 invited applications from the persons, who were in possession of the land of Khasra No. 1045 and others for regularisation of the land in their favour. The petitioners are claiming that they have moved applications for regularisation of the land in question in their favour pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.11.2012 and the said applications of the petitioners are pending with the UIT. 4. The petitioners have further claimed that the Tehsildar, UIT Udaipur issued a notice to them on 11.03.2016 asking them to appear before it on 15.03.2016 or to remove their possession from the land of Khasra No. 1045 of village Debari. 5. 4. The petitioners have further claimed that the Tehsildar, UIT Udaipur issued a notice to them on 11.03.2016 asking them to appear before it on 15.03.2016 or to remove their possession from the land of Khasra No. 1045 of village Debari. 5. It is contended that the petitioners appeared before the Tehsildar on 15.03.2016 and sought time to file reply to the notice and the next date in the matter was fixed as 22.03.2016, however, in the meantime on 21.03.2016, the officials of the UIT came to the site and demolished the constructions raised by the petitioners over the said piece of land. It is also contended that the said action of the respondents of demolishing the property of the petitioners is illegal and unconstitutional and it has caused irreparable loss to the petitioners. 6. It is further contended that the Tehsildar, UIT Udaipur vide order dated 22.03.2016 dropped the proceedings against the petitioners under section 92-A of the Act of 1959 while observing that since the petitioners have already been dispossessed, no further order is required to be passed in the matter. It is contended that from the order dated 22.03.2016, it is clear that the petitioners were asked to submit their reply up to 22.03.2016, however, their possession over the land was removed illegally on 21.03.2016. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, argued that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, these writ petitions deserve to be allowed and the reliefs prayed for in these writ petitions may be granted to the petitioners. 8. Replies to both the writ petitions have been filed on behalf of the respondent-UIT in which it is claimed that the land in question was transferred to the UIT in the year 2010. It is averred in the reply that the land in question was earlier recorded as Government Bilanam and later on transferred to the UIT and the petitioners have never been recorded as Khatedar of the said land. It is also averred that the petitioners are trespassers and earlier also proceedings under section 91 of the Act of 1956 were initiated against them by the Tehsildar, Girwa and in those proceedings the orders for dispossession of the petitioners were passed. 9. It is also averred that the petitioners are trespassers and earlier also proceedings under section 91 of the Act of 1956 were initiated against them by the Tehsildar, Girwa and in those proceedings the orders for dispossession of the petitioners were passed. 9. It is contended that many times the unauthorized possessions of the petitioners were removed from the land in question, however, the petitioners have again trespassed over the land in question. Learned counsel for the respondent UIT has invited attention of the Court towards the orders passed by the Tehsildar, Girwa in the proceedings under section 91 of the Act of 1956 against the petitioners, copies of which are annexed with the replies of the UIT and has submitted that from the said orders, it is clear that the illegal possession of the petitioners over the land in question has been removed on several occasions, however, they are encroaching over the land in question from time to time. 10. It is contended that petitioner-Ghasi Ram was dispossessed from the land for four times, whereas illegal possession of petitioner Ashok Kumar was removed from the land in question for 11 times. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioners are the trespassers and, therefore, they are not entitled to get any relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and if the petitioners are aggrieved with the impugned orders passed by the Tehsildar, UIT dated 22.03.2016, they are free to avail appropriate remedy available to them under the provisions of the Act of 1959. 11. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. From the documents annexed with the writ petitions as well as the replies of the UIT, it is clear that the land in question was earlier recorded as Government Bilanam land and later on it was recorded in the name of UIT Udaipur. The documents also reveal that from time to time notices have been issued against the petitioners by the Tehsildar, Girwa Udaipur under section 91 of the Act of 1956. Orders for dispossessing them from the Government land have also been passed. 12. The documents also reveal that from time to time notices have been issued against the petitioners by the Tehsildar, Girwa Udaipur under section 91 of the Act of 1956. Orders for dispossessing them from the Government land have also been passed. 12. After transfer of the land in question to the UIT, notice dated 11.03.2016 was issued to the petitioners and pursuant to that the petitioners appeared before the Tehsildar, UIT and sought time to file reply and the next date in the matter was fixed as 22.03.2016, however, in the meantime on 21.03.2016, the petitioners were dispossessed from the land in question. 13. It is true that the petitioners were asked to submit their reply before the Tehsildar, UIT Udaipur on 22.03.2016, however, they were dispossessed from the land in question on 21.03.2016, but this Court cannot ignore the fact that the land in question has never been recorded in the names of the petitioners in the revenue record and the same was recorded as Government land earlier and now the land is belonging to the UIT and the petitioners have trespassed over the land on several occasions and from time to time, they have been dispossessed. 14. Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot direct the respondent-UIT to restore the position as it existed prior to 21.03.2016 looking to the fact that the petitioners are trespassers over the land, however, if the petitioners have suffered any damage on account of demolition of the constructions raised by them over the land in question, it is always open for them to seek compensation from the UIT by filing a civil suit for it. It is also open for the petitioners to claim title over the land by initiating appropriate proceedings under the civil law. 15. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions and the same are, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. Stay petitions also stand dismissed.