State Of Rajasthan vs Lrs Of Narayan Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 331 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 81/2020

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Ramdeora.

3. The Panchayat Samiti, Sankara, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer (Raj.)

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jaisalmer (Raj.)

----Appellants Versus

1. Hathi Singh S/o Shri Kalyan Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Ramdeora, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan)

2. Bhera Ram S/o Shri Moola Ram, By Caste Dholi, Resident Of Ramdeora, District Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).

----Respondents Connected With D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 57/2020

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Remdeora.

3. The Panchayat Samiti, Sankra, Pokran.

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaisalmer.

----Appellants Versus

1. Lrs Of Narayan Singh, Through-

2. Kheeju Kanwar W/o Late Narayan Singh, Aged About 70 Years, Village Ramdeora, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer (Raj.)

3. Bhanwar Kanwar W/o Kishan Singh, Aged About 45 Years, Village Nosariya, Tehsil Shri Dungargarh, District Bikaner (Raj.)

4. Bhanwar Singh S/o Late Narayan Singh, Aged About 47 Years, Village Ramdeora, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer (Raj.)

(2 of 6) [SAW-81/2020]

5. Parvati Kanwar W/o Bajrang Singh, Aged About 43 Years, Village Nosariya, Tehsil Shri Dungargarh, District Bikaner (Raj.)

6. Chuka Kanwar W/o Mehghu Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Village Aasrasir, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu (Raj.)

7. Umed Singh S/o Late Narayan Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Village Bhamaas, Tehsil Ladnu, District Nagaur (Raj.)

8. Shyam Sunder S/o Heera Lal, Aged About 58 Years, Jaisalmer.

9. Kishan Lal S/o Heera Lal, Aged About 68 Years, Jaisalmer.

10. Panchu Singh S/o Peer Dan Singh, Aged About 67 Years, Jaisalmer.

11. Ganpat Ram S/o Sona Ram, Aged About 48 Years, Jaisalmer.

12. Bhera Ram S/o Mangla Ram, Aged About 46 Years, Jaisalmer.

13. Chatura Ram S/o Babu Ram, Aged About 45 Years, Jaisalmer.

14. Nathu Ram S/o Ummeda Ram, Aged About 42 Years, Jaisalmer.

15. Gumana Ram S/o Khiyan Ram, Aged About 66 Years, Jaisalmer.

16. Gopilal S/o Savag Ram, Aged About 63 Years, Jaisalmer.

17. Mangi Lal S/o Bachala Ram, Aged About 56 Years, Jaisalmer.

18. Nathuram S/o Khakhu Ram, Aged About 48 Years, Jaisalmer.

19. Amba Ram S/o Utmaram, Aged About 53 Years, Jaisalmer.

20. Kana Ram S/o Amba Ram, Aged About 37 Years, Jaisalmer.

21. Prakash S/o Daulat Ram, Aged About 46 Years, Jaisalmer.

22. Manaklal S/o Deva Ram, Aged About 42 Years, Jaisalmer.

23. Chain Singh S/o Megh Singh, Aged About 55 Years, Jaisalmer.

24. Bagta Ram S/o Gorakh Ram, Aged About 47 Years, Jaisalmer.

(3 of 6) [SAW-81/2020]

25. Nathu Ram S/o Hukma Ram, Aged About 48 Years, Jaisalmer.

26. Ghana Ram S/o Dana Ram, Aged About 56 Years, Jaisalmer.

27. Bhanwar Singh S/o Nakhat Singh, Aged About 70 Years, Jaisalmer.

28. Bhom Singh S/o Nakhat Singh, Aged About 70 Years, Respondent No.2 To 22 Are Residents Of Village Ramdeora, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG, through V.C.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Mathur with Mr. Bhavit Sharma, through V.C.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

Judgment

06/01/2022

These appeals arise out of a common order of the learned

Single Judge dated 07.08.2019. The respondents-original

petitioners had approached the High Court challenging a resolution

passed by the Ramdeora Gram Panchayat demanding higher rent

for the leased out shops for a period of one month when the

Ramdeora mela would be held. According to the Panchayat, large

number of devotees appear in the mela for which the Panchayat

has to make special arrangements and incur considerable

expenditure. The shop-keepers also tend to benefit during such

period. The Panchayat therefore has been, since several years,

demanding special rent for this month. There are more than 200

shop-keepers in the region and only about 20 of them have

opposed this demand of the Panchayat.

(4 of 6) [SAW-81/2020]

The learned Single Judge granted interim relief in favour of

the petitioners referring to Rule 164 of the Rajasthan Panchayat

Raj Rules, 1996. The learned Single Judge observed that the said

provision does not permit increasing the rent for a particular

period. It is this order which the State authorities have challenged

in these appeals.

Learned Advocate General submitted that in the previous

applications for stay filed by the petitioners, no order was passed

by the High Court. It was the 5th attempt at the hands of the

petitioners which succeeded. He referred to Rule 164 of Rajasthan

Panchayati Raj Rules and submitted that the Panchayat could let

out the premises at a time for a period of 3 years, after which

either the rent has to be re-negotiated or the fresh allotments

have to be made through auction. In the present case, the

petitioners have been occupying the premises since several years.

The Panchayat has demanded legitimate charges for the one

month period during which large number of devotees visit the

market place and for which making arrangements, the Panchayat

has to incur considerable expenditure.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the original

petitioners submitted that the learned Single Judge has given

cogent reasons for granting interim relief. The Panchayat has been

revising the lease rent every year. He drew our attention to an

additional affidavit dated 04.01.2022 filed on behalf of the original

petitioners along with which a copy of a resolution dated

26.09.2019 of the Panchayat has been annexed.

Referring to this resolution, learned counsel submitted that

Panchayat also realized that as per the rules, it is not possible to

collect higher rent for one month of a year. As a result, the

(5 of 6) [SAW-81/2020]

Panchayat has decided to uniformly increase the lease rent for the

entire lease period and for which all the shop-keepers including

the petitioners are paying.

In view of the resolution of Panchayat dated 26.09.2019

referred to above, the issue of charging special rent for the mela

period, no longer remains recurring. The interim order passed by

the learned Single Judge thus would have a localized effect. The interim

order has already operated itself out for the previous mela season.

In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with

this interim order. We emphasize that by virtue of a resolution

dated 26.09.2019, now the Panchayat has also adopted a formula

of charging higher lease rent uniformly for the entire year instead

of demanding rise for one month when mela would be organized.

On account of this decision and the statement made by the

learned counsel for the petitioners that they are paying higher

lease rent as per the resolution of the Panchayat, the question of

continuation or vacation of interim relief becomes redundant. It is

clarified that while disposal of the writ petition, the challenge of

the petitioners shall be examined on all factual and legal aspects

unmindful of the observations made in this order. We have not

expressed any opinion on the authority of the Panchayat to charge

higher rent for a particular month of the lease period in terms of

Rule 164 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996.

Before closing, we clarify that the interim order passed by

the learned Single Judge would enure in favour of the petitioners

alone and no others. If the petitioners have not paid the lease rent

as per the revised charges, the dues shall be cleared latest by

31.01.2022 as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Learned Advocate General clarified that since no mela could be

(6 of 6) [SAW-81/2020]

held during the year 2020-21, the Panchayat would have taken an

independent decision. Since this issue is not at large before us, we

need not comment on the same.

Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

4-MohitTak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)