Bhajan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 702 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19/2022

1. Bhajan Singh S/o Megh Singh, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Arai Sikh, Resident Of Village Manaksar, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh.

2. Jagdish Singh S/o Megh Singh, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Arai Sikh, Resident Of Village Manaksar, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh.

3. Aatma Singh S/o Megh Singh, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Arai Sikh, Resident Of Village Manaksar, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh.

4. Deep Singh S/o Megh Singh, Aged About 48 Years, By Caste Arai Sikh, Resident Of Village Manaksar, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh.

5. Sukhdev Singh S/o Megh Singh, Aged About 46 Years, By Caste Arai Sikh, Resident Of Village Manaksar, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Collector, Hanumangarh.

2. Water User Association Bk-130, Through Its President Hardev Singh, Resident Of Chandha, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.

3. Bhakhra Project Management Committee, Through Its President Vijay Kumar Jangu, C/o Irrigation Office, Hanumangarh Junction.

4. Irshad S/o Noor Mohammed, By Caste Musalman, Resident Of Chak 2 S.t.d., Manaksar, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh.

5. Smt. Bhara D/o Noor Mohammed, By Caste Musalman, Resident Of Chak 2 S.t.d., Manaksar, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh At Present Resident Of Village Jhandawali Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.L. Joshi through V.C.

                                            (2 of 3)            [CW-19/2022]


                    JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                   Order

13/01/2022

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have

challenged the order dated 26.11.2021, passed by the learned

Additional Civil Judge, Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as

"the trial Court"), whereby the learned trial Court has appointed

the Commissioner and directed to apprise the Court about the

factual position of colour photograph.

2. Mr. N.L. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners relying

upon a judgment of this Court submits that the Commissioner

cannot be appointed for the purpose of collection of evidence.

3. True it is that the learned Trial Court should not appoint the

Commissioner lightly in routine manner, however, considering the

fact that the Commissioner was appointed on 26.11.2021 and was

required to furnish his report on 08.12.2021, this Court is not

inclined to interfere in the matter as the order impugned neither

suffers from any jurisdictional error nor is there any error

apparent, requiring exercise of power under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India. No interference is thus warranted as held by

Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Shalini Shyam Shetty &

Ors. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) SCC 329

and Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors., reported in

2003(6) SCC 675.

4. The writ petition is dismissed.

5. The Stay Petition also stands dismissed.

(3 of 3) [CW-19/2022]

6. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall be free to file

his objection in relation to Commissioner's report and the same

shall be considered, in accordance with law.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 47-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)