Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 100 (RAJ)

Shaitan Singh S/o Kaluram v. State Of Rajasthan

2024-01-16

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2024
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Since, all the above writ petitions are based on identical facts and arise out of the same order, therefore, with the consent of counsel for the petitioners, they are being heard and decided finally by this common order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the tenants of shops/cabins, which are under the control and management of the Waqf Committee located at Sindhari, District Barmer. On a complaint filed before the District Collector, Barmer stating therein that the land of Khasra No.61/11 situated in Village Sindhari Chousira is set apart for Kabristan but some persons have constructed commercial premises thereon. 4. The Patwari, Sindhari submitted his report under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act before the Tehsildar and on the basis of the said report, the Tehsildar initiated the proceedings against the petitioners and issued notices to them. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in pursuance of the notices issued to the petitioners, the Tehsildar vide order dated 23.09.2022 decided the proceedings mentioning that despite notices, nobody has appeared on behalf of the petitioners. It was further ordered that the petitioners are the encroachers upon the Government land and, therefore, they should be removed from the possession of the land. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the order dated 23.09.2022 has been passed without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He also submits that although the petitioners had engaged a counsel, but for one reason or the other, the counsel did not appear before the authority concerned and the Tehsildar proceeded ex-parte. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a judgment rendered by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.146/2023 (Bhera Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 04.02.2023 protecting interest of the petitioners, a liberty was also granted to them to prosecute the pending appeals and till the decision of the appeal, the shops/cabins were ordered not to be demolished. 8. Learned counsel further submits that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 04.02.2023, the appellate authority disposed of the appeals which have been again challenged by the aggrieved persons before this Court by way of filing a writ petition. 8. Learned counsel further submits that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 04.02.2023, the appellate authority disposed of the appeals which have been again challenged by the aggrieved persons before this Court by way of filing a writ petition. One such writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8519/2023 (Hussain Mohammad Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) wherein this Court after hearing the counsel for the petitioners passed an interim order on 04.07.2023. He Submits that the said writ petition is also pending consideration before this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if an interim protection is not granted to the petitioners, the shops/cabins of the petitioners will be demolished causing irreparable loss to them. He further submits that the case of the present petitioners is similar to the case of Hussain Mohammad (Supra). Learned counsel also submits that a breathing time may be granted to the petitioners to assail validity of the order dated 23.09.2022 before the Collector, Barmer and till the appeals are adjudicated, the shops/cabins of the petitioners may not be ordered to be demolished. 10. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case. 11. In the identical situation, while deciding the bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.146/2023 (Bhera Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), this Court passed an order dated 04.02.2023 in the following terms:- “Since all the above writ petitions are based on similar facts and arise out of the same order, therefore, they are being heard and decided finally by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in pursuance of the notice dated 08.07.2022 issued by the Tehsildar, Sindhari under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, the petitioners appeared before him and submitted the reply. However, the notice under Section 91 was decided against the petitioners vide order dated 29.09.2022. Aggrieved against the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by Tehsildar, Sindhari, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act before the respondent No.2-Collector Barmer. He submits that vide order dated 03.11.2022, notices have been issued on the appeal as well as on the stay application and the appeal is pending consideration. Aggrieved against the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by Tehsildar, Sindhari, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act before the respondent No.2-Collector Barmer. He submits that vide order dated 03.11.2022, notices have been issued on the appeal as well as on the stay application and the appeal is pending consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without deciding the stay application of the petitioners, the order under challenge passed by the Tehsildar, Sindhari is being implemented and the petitioners are being removed from the shops in question. He submits that if the respondents demolish/remove the petitioners from the property in question (shops), then the appeal before the respondent No.2 will be redundant. He, therefore, prays that till the stay application of the petitioners is decided by respondent No.2, the respondents may be restrained from removing the petitioner from the property (shops) in question. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, this court feels that since the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending consideration before the respondent No.2, the ends of justice will be met, if the petitioners’ possession should not be disturbed till the stay application is heard and decided by the respondent No.2. In the circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents that they shall not disturb the possession of the petitioners over the shops in question, till the stay application of the petitioners is decided by the respondent No.2-Collector, Barmer. The respondent No.2 – Collector, Barmer shall decide the stay application in the appeal preferred by the petitioners at the earliest, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Stay applications also stand disposed of accordingly.” 12. Since, the petitioners are having their shops/cabins in the same vicinity and the same are similarly situated to the shops/cabins of Bhera Ram and Hussain Mohammad (supra), the present writ petitions stand disposed of with a direction that if the petitioners file appeal/s against the order dated 23.09.2022 before the Collector, Barmer within a period of two weeks starting from today, the same shall be decided at the earliest preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing such appeals by the petitioners. 13. 13. Till the appeals of the petitioners are decided by the Collector, Barmer, status quo as it exists today with respect to the shops/cabins in question shall be maintained. 14. The writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms.