Ramdev vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2707 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2682/2022

Ramdev S/o Shri Nanu Ram, Aged About 26 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Mandal-Jodha, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Nagaur.

3. Additional District Collector, Nagaur.

4. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Degana, District Nagaur.

5. The Tehsildar, Degana, District Nagaur.

6. Gram Panchayat, Mandal Jodha, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur, Through Its Sarpanch.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Deepika Vyas

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

16/02/2022

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed

that the respondents be restrained from dispossessing the

petitioner and demolishing the construction of house he has

raised.

2. Admittedly, an order under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land

Revenue Act, 1956 came to be passed against the petitioner on

20.08.2019, wherein the petitioner was found to be an

encroacher.

3. Against the order aforesaid, petitioner claims to have filed an

appeal, which is said to be pending before the Appellate Authority.

(2 of 2) [CW-2682/2022]

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

respondent Tehsildar and other revenue authorities are

threatening to dispossess the petitioner, as they intend to widen

the road.

5. No notice or order has been placed on record. In the opinion

of this Court, the petitioner, who has been held encroacher, is not

entitled for any relief from this Court, particularly when appeal

against the order dated 20.08.2019 is pending before the

Appellate Authority.

6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel cited

judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, rendered in the case of

Vidya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradeh [AIR 2020 SC 4709] and

submitted that the petitioner is entitled for compensation.

7. The judgment cited by the petitioner is not applicable

inasmuch as, even for the purpose of claiming adverse possession,

the petitioner has to file a suit for declaration in competent Court

and then only, compensation can be ordered to be awarded.

8. This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the

present writ petition.

9. The writ petition, therefore, fails.

10. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 163-skm/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)