Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 January, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 7680/2019
Dinesh S/o Shri Sarvan Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, Resident
Of Solankiyo Ka Bera Pipar City, Tehsil Pipar City, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Department
Of Revenue (Group-3), Rajasthan, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Deputy Secretary, Department Of Revenue (Group-3),
Rajasthan, Jaipur Rajasthan.
3. The Collector, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Pipar City, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
5. Tehsildar, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
6. Shri Radhabhai Mandir Vidhyalya Samiti, Through Its
Director, Pipar City, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None present
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rekha Borana, AAG
Mr. O. P. Boob
All through Cisco Webex App
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
04/01/2021
1. The present writ petition has been preferred laying challenge
to the orders dated 01.07.1988 and dated 07.09.2018.
2. It is to be noted that by way of order dated 01.07.1988 two
acres of land was allotted to respondent No.6 - Shri Radhabal
Mandir Vidhyalya Samiti for establishment of public montessori
school and playground.
(2 of 2) [CW-7680/2019]
3. Another order (dated 07.09.2018), which has been
challenged in the present writ petition, is the order of Collector,
whereby the period of lease, which was initially for a period of 30
years, has been enhanced to 99 years.
4. A reply to the writ petition has been filed wherein it has been
asserted that the subject land has been allotted by the Collector
after due approval from the State Government.
5. In our considered view, the basic grievance relates to
allotment of land, which was made way back in the year 1988.
The petition, thus suffers from inordinate delay.
6. That apart, the counter affidavit filed by the State shows that
the allotment was made after due approval of the State
Government and the same is strictly in terms of the Conditions of
Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Unoccupied Government
Agricultural Lands For The Construction of Schools, Colleges,
Dispensaries, Dharmshalas & Other Building of Public Utility)
Rules, 1963.
7. The order dated 07.09.2018 is simply to the effect of
extension of lease period and the basic grievance, if any, relates
to an allotment made way back in the year 1988.
8. In addition thereto, since the allotment was made after due
approval of the State Government, we do not find any infirmity in
the allotment order and the order of extension of lease period.
9. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ
51-A.Arora/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
