Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Padam Chand Meena Son Of Shri Rang Lal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, G R Moolchandani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Writ Review No. 242/2018
Padam Chand Meena Son Of Shri Rang Lal Meena, Aged About
40 Years, R/o Village Nihalpura, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Revenue, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Collector And District Magistrate, Dausa.
3. Tehsildar, Baswa, District Dausa.
----Respondents
Review Petitioners:
1. Papli Khan s/o Shri Mohram Khan, Aged about 45 years, and R/o village Nihalpura, Tehsil Baswa, Panchayat Samiti Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj.)
2. Geelya s/o sh. Chotkya, Aged about 60 years, R/o village Nihalpura, Tehsil Baswa, Panchayat Samiti Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj.)
3. Doda Ram s/o Shri Shyoji Meena, Aged about 76 years, R/o village Nihalpura, Tehsil Baswa, Panchayat Samiti Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj.)
4. Babulal s/o shri Ramdhan Sain, Aged about 55 years, R/o village Nihalpura, Tehsil Baswa, Panchayat Samiti Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj.)
5. Indra Devi W/o Shri Chhagan Jogi, Aged about 44 years, R/o village Nihalpura, Tehsil Baswa, Panchayat Samiti Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj.)
6. Jagdish Jogi S/o Sh. Ganpat Jogi, Aged about 30 years, R/o village Nihalpura, Tehsil Baswa, Panchayat Samiti Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj.)
7. Bhagwan Sahay s/o Sh. Ganpat, Aged about 27 years, R/o village Nihalpura, Tehsil Baswa, Panchayat Samiti Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj.)
8. Pappu Khan s/o Sh. Mohram, Aged about 50 years, R/o village Nihalpura, Tehsil Baswa, Panchayat Samiti Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj.) (2 of 4) [WRW-242/2018]
9. Ramkishan s/o Shri Ganpat, Aged about 25 years, R/o village Nihalpura, Tehsil Baswa, Panchayat Samiti Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj.)
10. Banwari s/o Shri Ganpat, Aged about 20 years, R/o village Nihalpura, Tehsil Baswa, Panchayat Samiti Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj.)
11. Anita W/o Sh. Bundu Khan, Aged about 35 years, R/o village Nihalpura, Tehsil Baswa, Panchayat Samiti Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj.)
12. Pappu S/o Shri Laxman, Aged about 35 years, R/o village Nihalpura, Tehsil Baswa, Panchayat Samiti Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj.) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Kalavatiya HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI Order 19/09/2018 D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.1/2018:
Application seeking leave to file the review petition is allowed.
D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.918/2018:
1. For the reasons mentioned in the application delay in filing the review petition is condoned.
2. The application is allowed.
D.B. Review Petition No.242/2018:
1. In a Public Interest Litigation an order was passed on 28.11.2016 requiring the District Collector to examine the representations made concerning encroachment on Government land and if encroachments were found to remove the same in accordance with law.
(3 of 4) [WRW-242/2018]
2. The review-petitioners seek review of the order dated 28.11.2016. Pleadings in the review petition admit that the subject lands are pasture lands. It is pleaded in the review petition that the review petitioners are poor landless persons and were occupying small portions less than 1000 sq. meters and are residing there from more than 50-60 years. It is pleaded that the review petitioners learnt about the order dated 28.11.2016 when contempt proceedings were initiated for non-compliance of the order dated 28.11.2016. It is pleaded in the review petition that in the contempt proceedings the review-petitioners filed affidavits that they were ready to deposit DLC rates in respect of the land they were in possession of. It is pleaded that the State Government admitted that out of 56.23 hectares of pasture land in village Nihalpura only 0.50 hectares was under occupation and that the occupants were occupying the same for more than 50-60 years. It is pleaded that the State Government was ready to compensate the loss of pasture land by allocating equivalent Government land to be treated as a pasture land and simultaneously convert user of 0.50 hectares of pasture land into Abadi land. It is pleaded that the State Government issued notice to the review petitioners to deposit DLC charges.
3. Suffice it to state that the order of the Court dated 28.11.2016 required compliance with the law. If an encroachment or illegal occupation can be regularised by the State Government as per policy and especially keeping in view that the occupants are poor people, it would be a case where in accordance with law encroachers would not be required to be removed if they comply with the directions to pay or deposit the necessary amounts. Thus, no review of the order dated 28.11.2016 is required by us.
(4 of 4) [WRW-242/2018]
4. In the contempt proceedings the present order may be filed. The Contempt Court would consider the present order while adjudicating the contempt petition.
5. The review petition is disposed of.
6. D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.2/2018 is also disposed of.
(G R MOOLCHANDANI),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ KKC/s-36 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)