Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Shanker Lal Kumawat And Ors vs State Of Raj And Anr on 24 November, 2017

 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
                      JAIPUR
             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21536 / 2017
1. Shanker Lal Kumawat S/o Shri Kukaji Kumawat, Aged About 43
Years, R/o Kisan Mohalla, Lal Chowki, Kankroli, District Rajsamand


2. Mangilal Sen S/o Shri Ramlal Ji Sen, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Near Takiya Chowk, Jaton Ka Mohallla, Village & Post Kunwaria,
Tehsil & Distrcit Rajsamand.

3. Nizamuddin Shaikh S/o Shri Azizuddin Shaikh, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Silawatwadi, Mamu-bhanej Road, Tehsil & District
Rajsamand.

4. Babulal S/o Shri Meethalal Ji Kalal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Village & Post Lawasardargarh, Khatikon Ka Mohalla, District
Rajsamand.

5. Navneet Kumar Sen (Nai) S/o Shri Devilal Ji Sen, Aged About
36 Years, R/o Near Sandesh Public School, Naikwadi, District
Rajsamand.

6. Bahadur Singh S/o Shri Chennath, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
Fatehpura, Post Rajiyawas, Tehsil & District Rajsamand.

7. Nandkishore Vyas S/o Shri Shankerlal Vyas, Aged About 41
Years, R/o Village & Post Railmagra, District Rajsamand.

8. Kishanlal S/o Shri Kishoreji Ahir, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Village Madara, Post Railmagra, District Rajsamand.

9. Laxmanlal S/o Shri Gopilal Kumhar, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
Village & Post Lapsya, Tehsil Railmagra, District Rajsamand.

10. Brijkant Sanadhya S/o Shri Ramlal Sanadhya, Aged About 44
Years, R/o Village & Post Dhora Mohalla, Behind Temple, Kankroli,
District Rajsamand.

11. Madhavlal Jat S/o Shri Devilal Jat, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
18, Premidwara Marg, Amal Ka Kannta, Udaipur.

12. Lalu Ram Patel S/o Shri Govind Ji Patel, R/o Mukam Kholadi,
Post Devgaun, Tehsil Salumbar, District Udaipur (Raj.)

13. Chandan Singh Rao S/o Shri Jai Singh Ji Rao, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Village & Post Boyna, Via Khemli, Tehsil Mawli, District
Udaipur.

14. Mohanlal S/o Shri Chhogalal Kulmi, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
Naya Rajpura, Post Pithalpura, Via Kanod, Tehsil Vallabhnagar,
District Udaipur.
                                 (2 of 3)
                                                         [CW-21536/2017]

15. Ramesh Ameta S/o Shri Mithalal Ameta, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Village & Post Nawoniya, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur.


16. Gajendra Kumar Ameta S/o Shri Mohanlal Ji Ameta, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o Village & Post Bhatewar, Tehsil Vallabhnagar,
District Udaipur.

17. Manoharlal Ameta S/o Shri Durga Prasad Ameta, Aged About
38 Years, R/o Post Bhatewar, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur.


18. Kanhaiya Lal S/o Shri Narainlal Ameta, Aged About 45 Years,
R/o Intali, Via Fatehnagar, Tehsil Mavli, District Udaipur.

19. Omprakash Joshi S/o Shri Moolchand Joshi, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Village & Post Potlan, Tehsil Sahada, District Bhilwara.


20. Ghanshyam Lal Sharma S/o Shri Jamnalal Sharma, Aged
About 41 Years, R/o Sethwana, Post Lunada Via Kanod, District
Chittorgarh.

21. Udailal S/o Shri Purna Shankar Sharma, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Village & Post Nangawali, Tehsil Dungla, District Chittorgarh.
                                                      ----Petitioners
                               Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Irrigation
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
                                                    ----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s)   : Mr. V.K. Bhardwaj
For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
                               Order
24/11/2017

     Though the matter has been listed from the "defect side",

however, looking to the nature of the controversy and prayer

addressed; the defects, pointed out by the Registry, are wived for
                                 (3 of 3)
                                                            [CW-21536/2017]

the present.

     Heard.

     At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that at this stage, the petitioners would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation within a time frame, which the petitioners are ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioners to address a comprehensive representation to the respondents ventilating their grievances.

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J. SS/195