Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kailash Labana vs The State Of Rajasthan on 5 November, 2020
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Writ Misc Application No. 126/2020
Kailash Labana S/o Sh. Madanlal Labana, Aged About 56 Years,
B/c Labana (Banjara/obc), R/o Ward No. 12, Nagar Panchayat
Singholi, Tehsil Singoli, District Neemach, M.p.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Home
Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
3. The Collector, Chittorgarh.
4. The Tehsildar, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh
5. Gram Panchayat Meghniwas, Through Its Secretary, Gram
Panchayat Meghniwas, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District
Chittorgarh.
6. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Meghniwas, Tehsil
Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh
7. S.h.o. Police Station Begun, District Chittorgarh
8. Superintendent Of Police (Rural), Chittorgarh.
9. Patwari, Patwar Halka Meghniwas, Tehsil Rawatbhata,
District Chittorgarh.
10. Narayan Giri, Tehsildar, Tehsildar Office, Rawatbhata,
District Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Vyas
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order 05/11/2020 The matter comes upon for consideration of application with the prayer for recalling the order dated 22.07.2020 passed in (Downloaded on 05/11/2020 at 09:09:02 PM) (2 of 4) [WMAP-126/2020] SBCWP No. 5429/2020 whereby, the writ petition was dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy of filing appeal against the final order/proceedings passed by the concerned Tehsildar while exercising powers under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for shout 'the Act of 1956').
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 22.07.2020, two matters were listed before this Court and in those two matters, final orders passed by the Tehsildar while exercising powers under Section 91 of the Act of 1956 were challenged, however, in the present case, counsel for the petitioner did not have instructions of not pressing the writ petition, however, due to inadvertence, counsel for the petitioner has made the said statement, on basis of which, the writ petition was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 22.07.2020.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to recall the order 22.07.2020 passed in SBCWP No. 5429/2020.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on merits in SBCWP No. 5429/2020.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.05.2020 passed by the Tehsildar while exercising powers under Section 91 of the Act of 1956 whereby, he has ordered for removing encroachment made over the government land.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was in possession of the land, for which, the Tehsildar had ordered for removing the encroachment. It is submitted that earlier, one Sanjay Kumar Mehta, to whom the Tehsildar had (Downloaded on 05/11/2020 at 09:09:02 PM) (3 of 4) [WMAP-126/2020] issued notice under Section 91 of the Act of 1956 was in possession of the land, but later on, he rented out the land in question to the petitioner and at the time for initiating proceedings under Section 91 of the Act of 1956 by the Tehsildar, the petitioner was in possession of the said land. It is the case of the petitioner that before initiating proceedings under Section 91 of the Act of 1956, the Tehsildar has not issued any notice to him. In support of the claim that the petitioner was in possession of the land in question at the time of initiation of impugned proceedings by the Tehsildar, he has produced two affidavits sworn by one Sanjay Kumar Mehta dated 19.06.2020 wherein he stated that he has rented out the disputed land to the petitioner twenty years back.
It is noticed that no documents regarding the above transaction has been produced on record by the petitioner. When Sanjay Kumar Mehta himself was the encroacher over the government land, he has no right to give the said land on rent to any other person including the petitioner.
This Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Tehsildar under Section 91 of the Act of 1956, he can very well file appeal against the same as provided under the provisions of the Act of 1956.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was not a party before the Tehsildar concerned under the impugned proceedings under Section 91 of the Act of 1956, he cannot file appeal again, is bereft of any merits, as the term 'any person aggrieved' cannot be given restricted meaning, as it may be resulted into depriving the legal right of a person aggrieved, hence liberal approach is required to be taken and it (Downloaded on 05/11/2020 at 09:09:02 PM) (4 of 4) [WMAP-126/2020] can be said that any person aggrieved can challenge the impugned proceeding, who has a genuine grievance against the impugned action of any authority.
This Court is of the opinion that since the petitioner has alternate remedy of filing appeal before the appellate authority against the impugned order passed by the Tehsildar, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Copy of this order be also placed on record of SBCWP No. 5429/2020.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J Surabhii/82- (Downloaded on 05/11/2020 at 09:09:02 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)