Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Indrasingh vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 August, 2020
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6883/2020
1. Indrasingh S/o Jai Narayan, Aged About 55 Years, By
Caste Jat, R/o 158, Rasoi Sonipat, Haryana.
2. Manish Malik S/o Satya Prakash, Aged About 40 Years, By
Caste Jat, R/o House No.50, Lane No.7, Aajad Nagar,
Panipat, Haryana.
3. Vikas Guliya S/o Surat Singh, Aged About 40 Years, By
Caste Jat, R/o 134, Vighag 12, Sonipat, Haryana.
4. Vinod Kumar S/o Suresh Kumar, Aged About 42 Years, By
Caste Jat, R/o Mehdipur, Sonipat, Haryana.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Bikaner.
3. Tehsildar, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner.
4. Circle Office, Police Department, Kolayat, District Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Shyam Sunder Ladrecha
:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order 11/08/2020 The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:
"It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by an appropriate writ, order or direction;
1. The respondents-authorities may very kindly be restrained from entering into the land of the (Downloaded on 13/08/2020 at 08:39:49 PM) (2 of 4) [CW-6883/2020] petitioners and interfering in peaceful, cultivatory, khatedari possession of the petitioners over their land situated in Village Chani, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner under grab of order dt.26.02.2020. (Annexure-7)
2. The respondents may very kindly be directed to maintain status qua till petitioners are afforded opportunity of being heard by the courts of law and till then, not to dispossess the petitioners from their land.
3. Any other order/orders which this Hon'ble High Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of petitioner."
The contention of the petitioners is to the effect that a revenue suit was filed by some private persons for declaration against Anop Singh and others in which the suit was decreed by collusion and the order of decreeing the suit passed by the SDO is affirmed up to the Board of Revenue. Pursuant to the decision of the Board of Revenue, the Tehsildar (Revenue) Kolayat, District Bikaner vide notice dated 26.02.2020 issued to Anop Singh and others has directed to vacate the land involved in the revenue suit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that under the garb of notice dated 26.02.2020, some persons are trying to dispossess the petitioners from their khatedari land, which was not subject-matter of the proceedings in which the decree was passed by the SDO, Bikaner on 14.02.2018.
It is noticed that the petitioners did not make party to any private person, who allegedly wants to dispossess them (Downloaded on 13/08/2020 at 08:39:49 PM) (3 of 4) [CW-6883/2020] under the garb of notice dated 26.02.2020 issued by the Tehsildar Revenue, Kolayat to Anop Singh and others.
Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that as the private persons have tried to dispossess the petitioners illegally, they preferred a revenue suit before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kolayat, District Bikaner under Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 but since the SDO, Kolayat was on leave and the charge was with the Tehsildar, Kolayat, therefore, the suit was presented before him but he had not registered the same and made a note that the suit be placed before the SDO, Kolayat, Bikaner upon resuming his duties after expiry of leave.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners approached the District Collector, Bikaner with a prayer for transferring the revenue suit filed by them to any other SDO of the District, so that the petitioners may get an urgent hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Annexure-8 claiming that this is the representation, which they have filed before the District Collector.
Having gone through the representation (Annexure-
8), it is clear that in this representation no such prayer is made on behalf of the petitioners to get the revenue suit transferred to some another Sub-Divisional Officer of District. In the said representation, the petitioners have only complained that one Mohan Lal and family are forcibly trying to dispossess them from their khatedari land. In this representation, neither there is any mention about the notice dated 26.02.2020 issued by the (Downloaded on 13/08/2020 at 08:39:49 PM) (4 of 4) [CW-6883/2020] Tehsildar, Kolayat to Anop Singh and others nor there is any mention about decision of any revenue court.
It is also noticed that the said representation is of dated 16.07.2020, whereas the endorsement of Tehsildar to place the revenue suit filed by the petitioners before the SDO concerned on his resuming duty after expiry of leave is of dated 22.07.2020.
In such circumstances, it is clear that the petitioners never made any prayer before the District Collector to transfer their suit to any other SDO of District on account of non- availability of SDO, Kolayat.
Otherwise also, the writ petition involves various disputed questions of fact, therefore, I do not find it appropriate to interfere in this matter while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
If the petitioners are so advised, they may move an appropriate application before the District Collector for transmitting the revenue suit filed by them before some other SDO of District on account of non-availability of SDO, Kolayat, District Bikaner.
With these observations, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J masif/-PS (Downloaded on 13/08/2020 at 08:39:49 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)