Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 492 (RAJ)

Manjoor Khan S/o Isale Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2022-02-14

DINESH MEHTA

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the notice issued by the Gram Panchayat, vide which they have been asked to handover their possession, which according to the respondent Gram Panchayat is on the play ground/in or around the boundary of the Government school. 2. Mr. Sudhir Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are having long possession over the subject land and have raised even Pakka construction, over the land that is part of the Aabadi land. 3. It is also contended that that a few of the petitioners have raised construction within the precincts of the school, whereas construction of other petitioners is outside the boundary wall of the school. 4. Mr. D.K. Godara, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Gram Panchayat vehemently argued that the petitioners are rank encroachers, who have earlier encroached upon the public road and when the road has been constructed, they have shifted backwards in or around the boundary wall of the school and few of them have even entered in the portion of the school land and, therefore, no indlugence be granted to the petitioners. 5. At this juncture, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the State has promulgated a scheme namely 'Swamitva Yojana' notified on 18.01.2021 and the competent authority be directed to regularise petitioner's possession. 6. The writ petitions stand disposed of with the permission to the petitioners to approach the District Collector, Jaisalmer or competent authority for regularisation of their possession in terms of the Swamitva Yojana notified by the State Government on 18.01.2021. 7. In case petitioners move such application for regularisation of their possession, the District Collector Jaisalmer/competent authority shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, as early as possibly, preferably within a period of six weeks of receiving the application. 8. Interim orders (if any) earlier passed by this Court stand vacated. 9. Stay applications also stand disposed of accordingly.