Rajasthan High Court
Ramphal Yadav Son Of Shri Raghubir ... vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 2 February, 2023
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
[2023/RJJP/001370]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14573/2022
1. Ramphal Yadav Son Of Shri Raghubir Singh, Aged About
55 Years, Resident Of Khanpur, Bhiwadi Bye Pass, Tehsil
Tapukda, Distt. Alwar.
2. Ramanand Yadav Son Of Shri Raghubir Singh, Aged About
48 Years, Resident Of Khanpur, Bhiwadi Bye Pass, Tehsil
Tapukda, Distt. Alwar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Industries
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Bhiwadi Integrated Development Authority, (Bida),
Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Bhiwadi.
3. Encroachment Protection Officer, Bhiwadi Integrated
Development Authority (Bida), Bhiwadi.
4. Public Works Department, Through Superintending
Engineer, Circle Alwar, Distt. Alwar.
5. Land Acquisition Officer, Public Works Department, Circle-
I, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anita Aggarwal
Mr. Laxmikant
Ms. Gaurika Bhansali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Paresh Choudhary
Mr. Rohit Choudhary, Dy.G.C.
Mr. Pallav Choudhary
Mr. Bhoori Singh, A.En.
PWD, Kishangarh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
02/02/2023
Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the
following prayers:-
"It is therefore most humbly prayed
before this Hon'ble High Court that
Your Lordships may graciously be
(D.B. SAW/63/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
[2023/RJJP/001370] (2 of 4) [CW-14573/2022]
pleased to accept and allow this writ
petition and by an appropriate writ,
order or direction:
i) Quash and set aside the notice
dated 20.01.2022 issued under
Section 46 of the Rajasthan Special
Investment Region Act, 2016 and the
respondents may be directed not to
create any obstruction or
encroachment in the peaceful
occupation of the land of the petitioner
bearing Khasra No. 553,554.
ii) Any other order which this Hon'ble
court may deems fit and proper may
kindly be passed in favour of the
petitioner."
Brief facts of the case are that the Land Acquisition Officer
acquired certain lands for widening of the existing highway in
Village - Khanpur, Tehsil - Tapukda, District Alwar vide award
dated 27.01.1992. After passing of the said award, the divider was
also constructed by the respondents and the Public Works
Department handed over the map for widening of the highway to
the Bhiwadi Integrated Development Authority (hereinafter to be
referred as "BIDA"). The BIDA found the encroachment by the
petitioners over the acquired land, therefore, the BIDA issued
notice to the petitioners for removal of their encroachment.
Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners
challenging the notice dated 20.01.2022 issued by the BIDA.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents in
an arbitrary manner trying to construct the highway on their land.
Counsel further submits that the respondents have wrongly
constructed the divider and therefore all the measurements are
wrong. Counsel further submits that the measurement taken by
the respondents are wrong and prayed for appointment of Mauka
Commissioner.
(D.B. SAW/63/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
[2023/RJJP/001370] (3 of 4) [CW-14573/2022]
Petitioners are also present with their counsel in the Court
and submitted that they are regularly representing to the
respondents since the year 1997 for wrongful construction of the
divider on the said road.
Counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition
and submitted that the BIDA is constructing the highway only on
the acquired land as per the map provided by the Public Works
Department. Counsel further submits that the highly disputed
questions of facts are involved in this writ petition, therefore, the
same deserves to be dismissed.
In support of his contention, counsel relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Shubhas Jain Vs. Rajeshwari Shivam & Ors. in Civil Appeal
No. 2848 of 2021 has held as under;
"26. It is well settled that the High Court
exercising its extraordinary writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, does not adjudicate
hotly disputed questions of facts. It is not
for the High Court to make a comparative
assessment of conflicting technical
reports and decide which one is
acceptable."
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be
dismissed; for the reasons, firstly, the BIDA is doing the work of
the widening on the existing highway based on the report
submitted by the Public Works Department, secondly, the
petitioners have submitted that they are raising the dispute with
regard to construction of divider since the year 1997 but no legal
proceedings have been initiated by them against the respondents,
(D.B. SAW/63/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
[2023/RJJP/001370] (4 of 4) [CW-14573/2022]
thirdly, the highly questions of facts are involved in this writ
petition and this Court cannot go into the disputed questions of
facts with regard to measurement of the land in dispute, lastly, in
view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Shubhas Jain (supra), no case is made out to interfere
by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
Upendra Pratap Singh /178
(D.B. SAW/63/2023 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
