Gulab Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 4703 Raj

                                       (1 of 3)                   [WMAP-193/2021]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
              D.B. Writ Misc Application No. 193/2021

Gulab Singh and Ors.

                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Ors.
                                                                ----Respondents
Oma Ram Banjara S/o Shri Mangla Ram, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident Of Village And Post Chotila, Tehsil Rohat, District Pali.
                                                                   ----Applicant


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Manoj Bohra



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

                                    Order

29/03/2022

     In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its

highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of

all concerned.

     Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a public

interest litigation cannot be withdrawn by either of the parties

once the adjudication begins before the Court. Learned counsel

further submits that the right of the parties to enter into a private

settlement regarding the dispute in question, while the public

interest litigation is being adjudicated, is not permissible in law.

     Learned counsel has relied upon the precedent law laid down

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Young Lawyers Association and

Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in (2016) 16 SCC 810.

Para 3 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

                    (Downloaded on 31/03/2022 at 08:24:24 PM)
                                          (2 of 3)                 [WMAP-193/2021]


     "3. The said explanation, if we allow ourselves to say so, is
     absolutely unnecessary. The affidavit has been sworn by one
     Ms Bhakti Pasrija who is the General Secretary of the
     Association. It is a public interest litigation meant for
     canvassing the cause for gender equality, that is perception of
     Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Association. The
     thrust of the matter is whether women within the age group of
     10 to 50 should be allowed to enter into Sabarimala Temple or
     not has to be debated in due course when the matter is taken
     up for hearing by this Court. Hearing in a court of law is not
     dependent especially in a public interest litigation by any
     person. Once the public interest litigation is entertained by this
     Court taking the lis into consideration, even if the President of
     the Association desires to withdraw the same, this Court may
     decline to grant that permission. That apart, as we find, there
     are other petitioners."

     Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court

towards   Section    16     of    the     Rajasthan         Tenancy   Act,   1955,

particularly clause 6, which provides that in respect of a land

acquired or held for a public purpose or a work of public utility,

Khatedari rights cannot be given by the State.

     Learned counsel further submits that by virtue of the

settlement arrived at between the parties, the Khatedari rights of

the land of way, which could not have been given, have been

conferred upon the private parties.

     This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the applicant, is

of the firm opinion that it was the prerogative of this Hon'ble Court

whether to adjudicate the dispute or not, and once the parties

submitted before the Court that their dispute regarding the public

interest or public way has been settled between them, this Court

need not have continued the adjudication. The only order passed

was to the effect that once the parties stood at a settlement



                      (Downloaded on 31/03/2022 at 08:24:24 PM)
                                                                           (3 of 3)                 [WMAP-193/2021]



                                   amongst themselves, for which, neither the Court was required to

                                   accept or not to accept, nothing survives for adjudication in the

                                   writ petition.

                                        The writ petition has not been adjudicated on merits and in

                                   case, any action of the parties in the writ petition prejudices the

                                   present petitioner, it shall of course be open to him to take

                                   appropriate legal recourse, but it is not appropriate for the

                                   applicant to seek any review of the order, which does not carry

                                   any adversity for any of the parties.

                                        In view of the above, no case for interference is made out in

                                   the present application and the same is accordingly dismissed.



                                   (MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J               (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

7-Zeeshan

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)