Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Raj vs Charbhuja Processors Ltd., & Anr on 12 April, 2017
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 128 / 2014
The State Of Rajasthan through the Up-Tehsildar, Hamirgarh,
District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Charbhuja Processors Ltd., Growth Centre, Bhilwara Up-
Teshil, Hamirgarh, Tehsil Bhilwara through Factory Manager Shri
Vinod Tripathi s/o Shri Umakant Tripathi, r/o Tehsil & District
Bhiwlara.
2. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.O.P.Boob, G.C.
For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 12/04/2017 This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 9/4/2012 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, whereby, the revision petition filed by the respondent has been accepted and order dated 26/2/2009 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Hamirgarh, Teshil & District Bhilwara has been set aside.
A report was submitted by Patwari through Naib Tehsildar on 24/12/2008 alleging that the respondent no.1 was dumping waste water on the land in question; the Tehsildar issued notice under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 ('the Act') to the respondent no.1 to show cause, the respondent no.1 responded to the notice and after hearing, the Naib Tehsildar by his order dated 26/2/2009 rejected the objections filed by the respondent no.1 (2 of 3) [CW-128/2014] about maintainability of the proceedings under Section 91 of the Act and directed the parties to lead evidence.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent no.1 filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue after noticing the provisions of Section 91 of the Act and the report made by the Patwari, came to the conclusion that no case under Section 91 of the Act regarding unauthorized occupation of the land was made out and the proceedings under relevant law for discharging the polluted water could be taken and that the respondent no.1 had Consent to Operate issued by the Rajasthan State Pollution Board and consequently allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent no.1 and quashed the proceedings initiated by the Naib Tehsildar.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Board of Revenue was not justified in quashing the proceedings inasmuch as the respondent no.1 was indulging in discharging polluted water and, therefore, he was liable to be proceeded under Section 91 of the Act and consequently the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.
I have considered the submissions, the provisions of Section 91 of the Act read as under:
"91. Unauthorized occupation of land -
(1) Any person who occupies or continues to occupy any land without lawful authority shall be regarded as a trespasser and may be summarily evicted therefrom by the Tehsildar at any time of his motion or upon the application of a local authority at whose disposal such land has been placed, and any crop standing, or any building or other construction erected, or anything deposited on such land shall, if not removed within such reasonable time as the Tehsildar may from time to time fix for the purpose, be liable to be forfeited to the State (3 of 3) [CW-128/2014] and to be disposed of in the case of any such crop, in the manner he thinks fit and in other cases as the Collector may direct."
A bare look at the provisions of Section 91 of the Act reveals that the same pertain to action against a person who is in unauthorized occupation of the land for his eviction. A look at the notice issued by the Naib Tehsildar indicates that a notice in proforma of Section 91 has been issued without indicating any reasons. In response thereto, the respondent no.1 gave a detailed reply pointing out the allegation made against him in the report of the Patwari and submitted that provisions of Section 91 of the Act do not apply. However, the Naib Tehsildar reiterating the allegation regarding discharging polluted water held that notice under Section 91 of the Act was justified and proceedings were maintainable.
In view of the nature of allegation made, which does not pertain to unauthorized occupation of the land, provisions of Section 91 of the Act have no application for the allegation made against the respondent no.1 and proceedings under appropriate provision of law by appropriate authority could have been taken, which, if the violation persists, can well be taken against respondent no.1.
In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the Board of Revenue does not call for any interference. There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI)J. Baweja-53