Narendra Singh Kothari vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14012 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4456/2022

1. Narendra Singh Kothari S/o Shri Moolchand Kothari, Aged About 62 Years, Jain Mohallah, Raiupr Distt. Bhilwara.

2. Jitendra Kumar Vaishnav S/o Shri Madan Das Vaishnav, Aged About 38 Years, Nai Abadi Road, Raipur, Distt. Bhilwara (Raj.).

3. Dinesh Laxkar S/o Goverdhan Laxkar, Aged About 27 Years, Ward No. 05, Vivekanand Marg, Raipur, Distt. Bhilwara (Raj.).

4. Raju Lal Nayak S/o Prabhu Lal Nayak, Aged About 40 Years, Raipur Borana, Distt. Bhilwara (Raj.).

5. Dinesh Mali S/o Balu Ram Mali, Aged About 36 Years, Vivekanand Marg, Raipu, Distt. Bhilwara (Raj.).

6. Chatar Singh S/o Gopi Lal, Aged About 60 Years, 1141, Kumhar Mohalla, Raipur, Distt. Bhilwara (Raj.).

7. Shanti Lal Kumawat S/o Bhairu Lal Kumawat, Aged About 38 Years, Raipur, Distt. Bhilwara (Raj.).

8. Lehru Lal Kumawat S/o Jawana Kumawat, Aged About 46 Years, Kumawato Ka Mohalla, Raipur, Distt. Bhilwara (Raj.).

9. Basanti Lal Gurjar S/o Deepchand Gurjar, Aged About 36 Years, Ward No. 5, Patwari Ke Pass, Pitha Ka Khera, Raipur, Distt. Bhilwara (Raj.).

10. Nathu Lal Sharma S/o Balu Ram Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, In Front Of Charbhuja Temple, Suras Thala, Distt. Bhilwara (Raj.).

11. Bheru Singh Chundawat S/o Shambhu Singh Chundawat, Aged About 44 Years, Nandsha Jagir, Distt. Bhilwara.

12. Mukesh Sen S/o Mohan Lal Sen, Aged About 42 Years, 716, Near Bus Stand Raipur, Distt. Bhilwara.

13. Vishal Vaishnav S/o Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 28 Years, 1305, Jhavanro Ka Mohalla, Raipur, Distt. Bhilwara.

14. Kishan Lal Kumawat S/o Dhan Raj Kumawat, Aged About 42 Years, 106, Dhulkhera Borana, Raipur, Distt. Bhilwara (Raj.).

15. Gopal Krishna Trivedi S/o Radheshyam Trivedi, Aged About 36 Years, Vivekanand Marg, Raipur, Distt. Bhilwara

(2 of 4) [CW-4456/2022]

(Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Department Of Revenue, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Local Bodies, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The District Collector, Bhilwara.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Bhilwara.

5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur, Distt. Bhilwara.

6. The Tehsildar, Raipur, District Bhilwara.

7. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Raipur, District Bhilwara.

8. The Executive Engineer, Ajmer Vidyut Viteran Nigam Limited, Raipur, Distt. Bhilwara.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mehta Mr. Ramawatar Singh Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi Mr. Piyush Bhandari for Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

29/11/2022

The dispute in this public interest litigation is regarding

encroachments on the public land i.e. the Ancient Monument Garh

Kila Raipur, District Bhilwara.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that

the aforesaid land is a Nazul land and that no one has authority of

law to encroach upon it and to raise any construction but certain

persons have unauthorizedly occupied the land and raised

(3 of 4) [CW-4456/2022]

construction to the detriment of public at large and despite

repeated representations of the petitioners, the State authorities

are not taking any action so as to remove those encroachments.

An application has been filed on behalf of the Waqf Board for

impleadment alleging that it is a Waqf property. Another

application has been moved by one private person claiming it to

be a Waqf property.

In this writ petition we are not called upon to decide the title

of any property over the land in question. It may however be

pertinent to mention here that Waqf had previously filed a suit no.

33/2007 before the Rajasthan Waqf Tribunal, Jaipur for getting

their rights over the land in dispute declared but when the State

responded in the said suit by alleging that the aforesaid land of

Arazi No. 2524 area 3 Bigha 4 Biswa of new Khasra No. 1803 is a

Nazul land which is recorded as such in revenue record and that it

is not a Waqf property, the suit was withdrawn.

The grievance of the petitioners that the above Nazul/public

land has been encroached upon can very well be looked into by

the District Collector at his own level in terms of the Division

Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad

Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ

Petition (PIL) No.10819/2018 decided on 30.01.2019].

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we dispose

of the writ petition with the direction to the District Collector

concerned to get the matter considered by the PLPC in accordance

with law most expeditiously within a period of three months by a

speaking order after hearing the parties concerned.

(4 of 4) [CW-4456/2022]

In case the petitioners are not satisfied with the order of the

PLPC, they are at liberty to take recourse to the remedies as may

be available to them in law.

(DINESH MEHTA),J (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ

13-Jayesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)