Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prakash Chandra Panwar vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 February, 2021
Bench: Indrajit Mahanty, Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2004/2019
Prakash Chandra Panwar S/o Chandna Ram Ji, Aged About 49
Years, By Caste Ganchi, R/o Berawadi (Ghanchiyan), Village
Sojat City, District Pali, (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Revenue Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The District Magistrate And Collector, District Pali.
3. The Mining Engineer, Sojat, District Pali.
4. The Forest Officer, District Pali.
5. The Tehsildar Sojat, District Pali.
6. The Sub Registrar, Sojat, District Pali.
7. Lila Devi W/o Prakash Chandra Bhati,, Aged About 42
Years, B/c Mali, R/o Nayapura, Maliyo Ka Bas, Sojatcity,
Tehsil Sojat, Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tej Singh Badgujar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG
Mr. Raghuraj Sharma
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
05/02/2021
(1) The present writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner under PIL jurisdiction of this Court alleging that the
respondent no.7 has encroached upon forest land of Khasra
No.255/1 ad-measuring .95 hectare and in land of Khasra
No.256/1 ad-measuring 5.25 hectares.
(2 of 3) [CW-2004/2019]
(2) According to the petitioner, the encroachment so made
by respondent no.7 is liable to be removed.
(3) A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the
respondents and it has been pointed out that the petition has
been filed with oblique motive and simply with a view to exert
undue pressure upon respondent no.7 with whom, the petitioner
had business relations which got strained.
(4) Learned counsel for the respondents invited Court's
attention towards dissolution deed dated 4.7.2008 and highlighted
that petitioner and respondent No.7 were partners in a firm known
as M/s Kushal Chemicals, Khokhara, Sojat City and separated from
the said partnership, whereafter a complaint was filed by the
petitioner against husband of the respondent no.7. He thus argued
that the petitioner has used writ jurisdiction of this Court to arm-
twist the respondent no.7.
(5) On merit, it was submitted that the land in question
was initially recorded in the name of Rao Raja Devi Singh Ji as per
the revenue record of the year 1963-64, whereafter the same was
sold vide sale deed dated 28.10.1968. It was submitted that the
same has changed various hands before coming in the hands of
the respondent and thus, petitioner's contention that the land is
forest land, is totally baseless.
(6) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the record, we are of the firm view that the present PIL
is not bonafide. The petitioner has approached this Court with an
oblique motive to harass respondent no.7 for the grievance or
grudge, he already has against her and her husband.
(3 of 3) [CW-2004/2019]
(7) That apart, the respondents have clearly stated that the land
in question has never been and is not a forest land and has been
shown in the name of Rao Raja Devi Singh.
(8) Thus, while observing that the petition merits rejection
we hold it to be not maintainable.
(9) The same is, therefore, dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ
161-CPGoyal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
