Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 644 (RAJ)

Suresh Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2020-09-08

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2020
JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for seeking direction against the respondents not to dispossess them from their residential houses/shops. The petitioners have further prayed that long possession/occupation of the petitioners may not be disturbed by the respondents only in the garb of the order dated 6th March, 2020 passed by the Division Bench in the case of Dalraj Doi & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (DB Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.3482/2020). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that one PIL in the name of Dalraj Doi was filed before this Court alleging illegal encroachment on the pasture land of different khasra numbers, including Khasra No.314, situated at revenue Village Dehlod, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk. 3. Learned counsel submitted that this Court did not entertain the writ petition and only directed the petitioners in the PIL to approach the District Collector, Tonk by filing a detailed representation and in that case, grievances of the petitioners were to be examined by the District Collector within the period of three months. 4. Learned counsel submitted that after the order of the Division Bench, the respondents have issued notices to the petitioners under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short "the Act of 1956") and in the garb of the notice and compliance of the High Court's order, the action of dispossessing the petitioners and demolition of their houses/shops is being taken. 5. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are not encroachers over the disputed land and they have made "Pakka" construction in last several years and as such, this Court needs to protect the rights of the petitioners. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 7. This Court finds that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dalraj Doi & Anr. (supra) has only given direction to the District Collector, Tonk to look into the grievances of the petitioners in respect of the illegal encroachment, said to be made on the pasture land. 8. This Court further finds that the petitioners have been issued notices under Section 91 of the Act of 1956 and if they are not encroachers, they have every right to submit before the authorities about their legal possession. 9. 8. This Court further finds that the petitioners have been issued notices under Section 91 of the Act of 1956 and if they are not encroachers, they have every right to submit before the authorities about their legal possession. 9. This Court finds that against the notice under Section 91 of the Act of 1956, the petitioners have adequate remedy to present before the authorities concerned and further, if they feel aggrieved against any order passed, affecting their rights, they have a right of appeal as well. 10. This Court, straightway, cannot exercise the writ jurisdiction to decide the disputed questions about legal or illegal possession of the petitioners and since, proper remedy is available with the petitioners, the present writ petition is not entertained by this Court. 11. This Court, however, finds that if the petitioners have their defence in response to the notice under Section 91 of the Act of 1956, the authorities are required to look into the claim of the petitioners and after hearing them, proper order may be passed, as per law. 12. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Bharat Yadav, submits that without deciding the proceedings initiated under Section 91 of the Act of 1956, the respondents are going to demolish residential houses/shops of the petitioners, this Court finds that if the authorities are seized with the matter while issuing notice under Section 91 of the Act of 1956, they are required to follow the law before taking any action or until, the petitioners are found encroachers, the process adopted by them for demolition/removal of the encroachers, has to be as per law. 13. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.