Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balsamand Aadarsh Vikas Samiti vs State And Ors on 13 August, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4570/2016
Balsamand Aadarsh Vikas Samiti
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhavit Sharma, Mr. Hukam Singh
Mr. Bakshi Ram Dhaka, present in
person
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
13/08/2021
The matter comes up for consideration of application
Nos.1/21, 2/21 and 3/21 in this writ petition.
The application No.1/21 has been preferred by Capt.
Bakshi Ram Dhaka, Secretary of the petitioner-samiti
through whom this writ petition is filed. In the aforesaid
application, Capt. Bakshi Ram Dhaka, present in person,
(2 of 4) [CW-4570/2016]
has prayed that this writ petition may be dismissed as
withdrawn as compromise has been arrived at between
the petitioner-samiti and the respondent No.3.
Application No.2/21 has been preferred on behalf of
eight individuals. In the aforesaid application, applicant
No.1 - Ramjeevan has claimed himself as treasurer of
the petitioner-samiti whereas, applicant Nos.2 to 8 are
claiming themselves as residents of the area. It is
contended by them that since the Secretary of the
petitioner-samiti has entered into compromise with the
respondent No.3 without consent of other members and
office bearers of the petitioner-samiti, they may be
allowed to pursue this writ petition by way of impleading
them as petitioners.
Application No.3/21 has been preferred on behalf of
applicant - Ram Jeevan, claiming himself as treasurer of
the petitioner-samiti. It is contended that since the
secretary of the petitioner-samiti without seeking
approval of other members and office bearers of the
petitioner-samiti has entered into compromise with the
respondent No.3 and has un-authorizedly decided to
withdraw the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner-
samiti, this writ petition may be allowed to be pursued
through the treasurer of the petitioner-samiti.
(3 of 4) [CW-4570/2016]
Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed
the application Nos.2/21 and 3/21 and submitted that as
per the constitution of the samiti, the writ petition can be
pursued by the samiti only through the secretary,
however, none of the applicants in application Nos.2/21
and 3/21 are the secretary of the petitioner-samiti,
therefore, their applications cannot be allowed. It is also
submitted that against the treasurer of the petitioner-
samiti namely Ram Jeevan, FIR is pending in respect of
this very much land, therefore, the aforesaid applications
may be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has
submitted that he has no objection if the application
No.1/21 is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed as
withdrawn.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties; after
going through the material available on record and taking
into consideration the fact that the issue involved in the
writ petition is in respect of so called public land, which
the respondent No.3 is claiming that he is the owner of
the same, I deem it appropriate to allow the treasurer of
the petitioner-samiti to pursue this writ petition.
Hence, the application No.3/21 is allowed. Amended
cause title already filed is taken on record.
(4 of 4) [CW-4570/2016]
In view of the order passed in application No.3/21,
the application No.2/21 is disposed of.
So far as application No.1/21 is concerned, the
prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition on the basis of
compromise is rejected.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
116-msrathore/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
