Tejaram S/O Shri Moolchand vs M/S Sumer Sons India Private ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5504 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 660/2021

Tejaram S/o Shri Moolchand, Aged About 68 Years, Senior
Citizen, R/o Village Gajadharpura, Tehsil And District Jaipur.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     M/s Sumer Sons India Private Limited, Registered Office
       23/115,      Loha       Mandi    Agra      (Utter         Pradesh)    Through
       Authorized Representative Praveen Kumar Jain S/o Shri
       Late Ompraksh, R/o 43/238, Jain Gali, Sikandra Agra
       (Utter Pradesh).
2.     The State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Jaipur, District
       Jaipur.
3.     Jaipur    Vikas     Pradhikaran,         Jaipur      Through         Secretary
       Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka & Mr. M.Iqbal For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Yogesh Pujari on behalf of Mr. DP Pujari For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Akshay Sharma, AGC For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Azad Ahmed

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Order

01/10/2021

1. Mr. Akshay Sharma, AGC has entered appearance on behalf

of respondent No.2, therefore, office note regarding service of

notice on respondent No.2 stands ignored.

2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

3. Although, a challenge has been made inter alia to an order

passed in appeal by the Board of Revenue by which it has

dismissed the appeal on 22.12.2020, affirming the judgment and

(2 of 3) [CW-660/2021]

order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur dated

25.11.2019.

4. The grievance of the present petitioner is that his application

for demarcation of the land was carried out by respondent Nos.2

and 3 and although, notices were issued to respondent No.1 to

appear on the said date but he could not appear and demarcation

proceedings and stone pelting has been laid down. It appears that

thereafter, respondent No.1 has filed an appeal challenging the

demarcation done in his absence. The said order was ultimately

set aside and against the order of setting aside the demarcation,

the present writ petition has come to be filed.

5. This court is of the considered view that such attempt of

litigation arising from a simple application for demarcation has

travelled to multiple forums and wasting of so much judicial time

at various courts. This is a fair case where valuable judicial time of

various statutory authorities as well as this court has been utilized

for the purpose of challenges on a simple issue of demarcation.

6. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order, this

court directs respondent Nos.2 and 3 to conduct a fresh

demarcation of the land in question on 08.11.2021 (Monday) at

11.00 A.M. and respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall pass necessary

directions to the Officers concerned to do the needful. The

petitioner herein as well as respondent No.1 shall be present in

person and the demarcation shall be done in their presence. It is

made clear that no further notice either to the petitioner or to

respondent No.1 in this regard shall be issued. However, if

demarcation requires some further time, it shall be open to

respondent Nos.2 and 3 to carry out the directions contained

therein on the next date or the date fixed thereafter.

                                                                                 (3 of 3)                [CW-660/2021]



                                   7.     Necessary     assistance      shall     also     be    required   from   the

concerned Superintendent of Police for this purpose.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ

N. Gandhi/JKP-s/93

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)