Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 502 (RAJ)

Shayam Sunder v. Union of India

2024-03-22

NUPUR BHATI

body2024
ORDER : (Nupur Bhati, J.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity of the order dated 12.09.2016 (Annex.7) passed by Estate Officer and Senior Divisional Engineer (East), North Western Railway, Ajmer and the order dated 24.05.2023 (Annex.10) passed by learned District Judge, Bhilwara. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application on 03.07.2003 under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1971') against the petitioner from the land 129/1-2 between (Railway Telephone Post 1 and 2) East side of the Station Division Bhilwara, inasmuch as the petitioner illegally encroached over the said land by constructing boundary wall upon an area ad-measuring 46.25 square meters. 3. The case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition is that the petitioner is in possession of the land i.e. 128/9-129-0 and he has not encroached over the land of the railways i.e. Pillar No.129/1/2. However, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice by the Estate Officer on 09.07.2003 (Annex.1) whereby the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he may not be dispossessed from the land in question. The petitioner submitted his reply while denying the fact that he has encroached over the railways land. In reply to the notice, the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the land purchased by him ad-measuring 40' x 125' comprising of Aaraji No.326 and the railway track is 105 feet away from his land. The petitioner requested for conducting survey/inspection so that the actual position could be determined. 4. Thereafter, the Estate Officer and Senior Divisional Engineer (East), North Western Railway, Ajmer vide its order dated 14.07.2004 proceeded to direct eviction of the petitioner from the land in question. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 14.07.2004 preferred an appeal, which appeal came to be allowed by the learned District Judge, Bhilwara vide order dated 30.10.2004, whereby the matter was remanded to the Estate Officer with a direction to decide the matter afresh while following the due procedure provided under the Act of 1971. 5. After the matter being remanded, the Estate Officer again sent a notice to the petitioner and in response thereof, the petitioner submitted requisite documents. 5. After the matter being remanded, the Estate Officer again sent a notice to the petitioner and in response thereof, the petitioner submitted requisite documents. Thereafter, demarcation proceedings were undertaken and report in this regard was submitted. On the report, which was prepared on 10.02.2016, the encroachers refused to sign the same and this endorsement has specifically been mentioned in the demarcation report dated 10.02.2016 (Annex.5 at page 39 of the paper book). The petitioner submitted his objection to the demarcation/survey report on 15.03.2016 that Tehsildar himself was not present at the time of conducting of the survey and the same was made by Patwari Halka. 6. After hearing both the parties and considering the material and evidence led before the Estate Officer and Senior Divisional Engineer (East), North Western Railway, the learned Estate Officer and Senior Divisional Engineer (East), North Western Railway vide order impugned dated 12.09.2016 (Annex.7) proceeded to decree the suit filed by the respondent and issued direction for dispossession of the petitioner from the land in question. 7. Being aggrieved of the order dated 12.09.2016 (Annex.7), the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bhilwara. The learned District Judge, Bhilwara dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Thus, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the while passing the orders impugned both the courts have misconstrued the survey/demarcation report submitted by the authorities concerned. Learned counsel further contends that though the petitioner filed objection to the survey/demarcation report, however, the same has not been considered by the learned trial court and the appellate court objectively. Learned counsel further submits that the map and other material in the form of revenue records submitted by the petitioner have not been considered by the trial court and the appellate court while passing the orders impugned. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus prayed that the orders impugned be quashed and set aside. 10. On the other hand, learned Dy.S.G. appearing for respondent Railways submits that the orders impugned have been passed by the trail court and the appellate court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties after the matter was remanded by the appellate court, inasmuch as due procedure has been followed viz. 10. On the other hand, learned Dy.S.G. appearing for respondent Railways submits that the orders impugned have been passed by the trail court and the appellate court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties after the matter was remanded by the appellate court, inasmuch as due procedure has been followed viz. survey was conducted by the concerned officials in the presence of the parties, however, it were the encroachers, who refused to sign the same. Learned counsel for the respondent thus submits that the orders impugned do not call for any interference by this Court and the writ petition preferred by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 11. I have given considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. This Court finds that joint inspection dated 10.02.2016 specifically records the fact that on the disputed land the petitioner has raised construction of permanent nature. The petitioner has not raised any objection while the inspection was being conducted and it was at a later stage that the petitioner has raised the objection that the Tehsildar concerned was not present while the survey/inspection was being conducted. On the contrary, the survey/joint inspection was being conducted at the behest of the Teshildar, wherein concerned Land Record Inspector, Patwari Halka, U.I.T., Bhilwara and officials of Railway were very much present, however, it was the petitioner and the other encroachers, who have refused to sign the report, which fact is recorded in the report itself. The joint inspection team specifically measured the land of village Malan, Aaraji No.326, wherein it was found that towards western side and from the centre point of railway line, the petitioner has made encroachment over the land ad-measuring by raising permanent construction of 475 square feet. Further, the petitioner before the trial court and the appellate court has miserably failed to produce any evidence in rebuttal of the joint inspection report. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial court and appellate court have considered the evidence led before the Estate Officer and Senior Divisional Engineer (East), North Western Railway and the appellate court has also considered the material placed before it minutely. The orders impugned do not call for any interference by this Court. 14. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial court and appellate court have considered the evidence led before the Estate Officer and Senior Divisional Engineer (East), North Western Railway and the appellate court has also considered the material placed before it minutely. The orders impugned do not call for any interference by this Court. 14. In view of above discussion, there is no force in the instant writ petition and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. Stay Petition also stands dismissed.