Rajasthan High Court
Shankar Singh vs State Of Raj And Ors on 14 February, 2022
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8919/2013
Shankar Singh son of Hari Singh, aged about 73 years, R/o-
Bhagat Singh Colony, Niwai, District Tonk.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Collector, Tonk.
4. Tehsildar, Niwai, District Tonk.
5. Nagar Palika-Niwani, through Executive Officer, District Tonk.
6. Smt. Pream Devi wife of Late Shri Tara Chand Tongiya,
resident of Bada Bazaar, Niwai, District Tonk.
7. Pawan Kumar Tongiya son of Late Shri Tara Chand Tongiya,
resident of Bada Bazaar, Niwai, District Tonk.
8. Mohan Chand Nagar son of Shri Chandi Shankar Nagar
resident of Jhilai Road, Opposite Water Bux, Niwai, District Tonk.
8/1. Shanti Devi wife of Late Shri Mohan Chand Nagar aged 76
years, resident of Jhilai Road, Opposite Water Bux, Niwai,
District Tonk.
8/2. Abhishek son of Late Mohan Chand Nagar, aged 43 years,
resident of Jhilai Road, Opposite Water Bux, Niwai, District Tonk.
8/3. Ashutosh son of Late Sh. Mohan Chand Nagar, aged 34
years, resident of Jhilai Road, Opposite Water Bux, Niwai,
District Tonk.
8/4. Ashish son of late Mohan Chand Nagar, aged 32 years,
resident of Jhilai Road, Opposite Water Bux, Niwai, District Tonk.
9. Government Senior Secondary School, Near Pratap Stadium,
Niwai, through Head Master.
(Downloaded on 19/02/2022 at 09:21:25 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-8919/2013]
10. Sanatan Dharm Sanskrit Mahavidhyalaya through Principlal,
Niwai, District Tonk.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Poonam Chand Bhandari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG through VC
Mr. Lokesh Sharma through VC
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
14/02/2022
In this public interest petition the petitioners have prayed for
a direction to the official respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to remove the
alleged illegal construction on a playground area. Further direction
is to the said respondents to protect the said area from any
encroachment.
According to the petitioners out of land bearing Khasra Nos.
1888 and 1889 at Village Niwai, District Tonk, 4 bighas of land was
allotted to Sanatan Dharm Sanskrit Mahavidhyalaya, Niwai
(respondent No.10) and additional 4 bighas land was allotted to
Government Senior Secondary School (respondent No.9). Out of
such land, 6 bigha land was put to use for the playground
purposes. According to the petitioners the private respondent
Nos.6 and 7 have caused encroachments on the said land and are
putting the same to commercial uses which is wholly
impermissible.
The respondent Nos.1 to 5, the official respondents have
filed the reply. The stand taken in the reply is that 4 bighas out of
the said land was earmark for government school and around
which land boundary wall has also been constructed. The official
(3 of 4) [CW-8919/2013]
respondents have averred that the mutation is already been made
in favour of the government high school and the land is in
possession of the school and no allotment by any authority from
the said land measuring 4 bighas has been made. The State has
categorically denied that land was never allotted to Sanatan
Dharm Sanskrit Mahavidhyalaya, Niwai for the purpose of higher
education. It is pointed out that the document Annexure-1
produced by the petitioner and on the basis of which the petitioner
claims that such allotment was made, is not a correct document.
A true copy of the letter dated 18.09.1972 of which type copy is
produced in the petition as Annexure-1 and by respondent at
Annexure-R/1. The vital difference between the two documents is
that the copy produced by the petitioner records allotment of land
whereas the document produced by the official respondents at
Annexure-R/1 does not carry any such declaration. Learned
counsel for the petitioner sought to clarify this by stating that
there was a typographical error committed while producing a copy
of the said document.
Be that as it may what appears uncontrovertable is that out
of those 2 Khasra numbers 4 bighas of land has been earmarked
for government school and as per government affidavit the
possession of the said land is safely with the school. So far as the
land said to be allotted to the college is concerned, the same has
never been allotted to the college, contrary to what the petitioner
want us to believe.
Under the circumstances asking the official respondents to
protect the land which is allotted in favour of college does not
arise.
(4 of 4) [CW-8919/2013]
Additionally we also find that in the reply filed by the
respondent Nos.6 and 7 it is pointed out that there are multiple
civil disputes between the parties with respect to this land in
question. According to the said respondents Pattas of land have
been allotted to them by the municipality in whom the land vests.
In multiple civil dispute they have succeeded so far.
We are not concerned with the details of decisions rendered
by the civil courts in relation to land in question. What is
important to record is that the land was never allotted to the
college as averred by the petitioner and there are multiple civil
disputes between private parties with respect to the same subject
matter of land. The petitioner had also produced a wrong
document to aver that the land is already allotted to the college.
Whether this was a bonafide error or a deliberate mischief, we are
not deciding in this public interest petition since a criminal
complaint as directed by the court is already lodged against and is
pending.
All in all the petition is absolute misuse of public interest
jurisdiction. The petitioners desire to carry out fishing enquriy. The
petitioners' counsel insisted that the respondents must file further
reply and produce additional documents only then full truth will
come on record. This reinforces our belief that the petition is
nothing but a fishing enquiry.
In the result the public interest petition is dismissed. We
however do not impose cost.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI/132
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
