Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Budharam vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 May, 2011
1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15546/2010 S.B. Civil Misc.Stay Application No. 8088/2010 (Budharam Versus Union of India & Others) 2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15661/2010 S.B. Civil Misc.Stay Application No. 8177/2010 (Ram Khilari Versus Union of India & Others) 3. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15662/2010 S.B. Civil Misc.Stay Application No. 8178/2010 (Gudhmal Versus Union of India & Others) Date of Order :: 9th May, 2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr.Surendra Singh,Counsel for the petitioner(s) Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Counsel for the respondents
Since all the aforesaid three writ petitions have arisen out of one order dated 2.11.2010, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Contextual facts of the case, in nub, are that the plaintiff-petitioners filed civil suits along-with the application for temporary injunction before the trial court mentioning therein that they were in power and possession of the residential plots situated in Dhani Lakhniwali, Village Piplai, Tehsil Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur. The respondents proposed to lay a railway line from Dausa to Gangapur passing through their plots in village Piplai, as such they were being evicted from the plots in question. Conversely, the respondents, in their written statement, contended that the disputed land fell under Khasra No. 668 and out of that land 26 air land had been allotted to Railway Department by the District Collector and the compensation whereof had been paid by the Railway Department. If any construction has been made thereon, that is sheet encroachment. The learned trial court, vide order dated 30.3.2010 allowed the application for temporary injunction and restrained the Railway Department not to create any hurdle or obstacle in the possession or use of the plots in question. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.3.2010, the Railway Department preferred appeals before the Additional District Judge, Gangapur City, who vide order dated 2.11.2010 allowed the appeals and set-aside the order dated 30.3.2010 passed by the trial court. Hence the instant writ petitions.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is noticed that the learned appellate court having considered the matter in detail found that albeit the trial court relied upon the patta issued by the Gram Panchayat, but didn't verify the patta. The learned trial court is also found not to have considered the fact that the disputed land was recorded as Sivai Chak land, which was allotted to the Railway Department and the compensation whereof had been deposited by the Railway Department. In case the plaintiff-petitioners were entitled to any compensation, then they ought to have filed their claim before the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Appellate Court, looking to the interest of public-at-large, rightly allowed the appeals preferred by the Railway Department and set-aside the order dated 30.3.2010 rendered by the trial court.
4. So far as the impugned order is concerned, it is based on the facts emerging on record. It is a well settled proposition of law that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to upset the pure findings of fact. The Court is expected to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction sparingly and that too when the impugned order is found to be perverse, contrary to material on record or it results in manifesting injustice.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has utterly failed to convince me to take a contrary view to that of the view taken by the learned appellate court. Hence, the writ petition being bereft of any merit, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold and the same stands dismissed accordingly.
6. Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the stay applications as well as the applications filed under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India do not survive and they also stand disposed of.
(MAHESH BHAGWATI),J.
DK/