Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1820 (RAJ)

Ramkumar Pareek, S/o Hadmanaram v. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government, Department Of Revenue And Colonization

2025-11-20

REKHA BORANA

body2025
ORDER : REKHA BORANA, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of notices dated 09.09.2020 (Annexure-10) issued by respondent no. 4 Naib Tehsildar, Mandi Vikas Samiti, Bikaner in terms of Section 22 of RAJASTHAN COLONIZATION ACT , 1954. 2. Vide the above notices, the petitioners have been called upon to show cause as to why the encroachment as made by them be not removed and why they be not dispossessed. Further, they have been called upon to show cause as to why a penalty for encroaching on a government land be not imposed on them. 3. Admittedly, no reply/response to the above notices was filed by the petitioners and they have approached this Court directly vide the present writ petition. 4. This Court is of the clear opinion that a writ Court cannot be a fact finding Court. The fact whether the petitioners have any document of ownership/long possession in their favour; whether they have encroached on a government land; whether similarly situated people have been granted pattas by the respondent Mandi Vikas Samiti; are the facts which have to be adjudicated first by the authority concerned. 5. The present writ petition is hence, disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to file reply/response to notice dated 09.09.2020 (Annexure-10) as served upon them within a period of 30 days from now. They shall be at liberty to annex all the documents in support of their ownership/long possession. 6. On such reply/response being filed, the competent authority shall be under an obligation to consider the same in accordance with law and if the petitioners are held entitled for regularization of their old possession on payment of the prevailing market rate and if the law so provides, he/they may proceed further in accordance with law for regularization of the old possession of the petitioners. 7. However, if it is found that the petitioners have encroached the public utility land and regularization of the same is not permissible under law, the competent authority shall be at liberty to proceed for removal of the encroachment in accordance with law. 8. The competent authority shall be under an obligation to take a final decision within a period of 90 days from the reply/response been filed by the petitioners. 9. Needless to observe that the petitioners shall be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing before any final order been passed. 10. 8. The competent authority shall be under an obligation to take a final decision within a period of 90 days from the reply/response been filed by the petitioners. 9. Needless to observe that the petitioners shall be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing before any final order been passed. 10. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.