Bheru Lal vs The State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 1 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7847/2020

1. Bheru Lal S/o Shri Jassa Ram Kharod, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Borda, Tehsil And District Bhilwara.

2. Bheru Lal Gadri S/o Shri Daula Gadri, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Village Aatun Tehsil And District Bhilwara.

3. Onkar Gadri S/o Dhana Gadri, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Aatun Tehsil And District Bhilwara.

4. Khemaji S/o Ambaji, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Borda, Tehsil And District Bhilwara.

5. Mahendra Singh S/o Udai Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Borda Tehsil And District Bhilwara.

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue (Gr.3), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The District Collector, Bhilwara.

4. Tehsildar (Revenue), Bhilwara.

5. Uit, Bhilwara Through Its Secretary.

6. Gram Panchayat Aatun, Through Secretary, Panchayat Samiti Suwana, Tehsil And District Bhilwara.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. R.S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Sandeep Shah, Senior Advocate
                                and AAG, assisted by Mr. Abhimanyu
                                Singh
                                Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                     Order

02/01/2023


                                          (2 of 7)              [CW-7847/2020]

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India has been filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation

seeking to assail the order dated 18.10.2019 (Annex.4), whereby

478 bighas of land categorized as Charagah (Pasture) in the

villages Pur, Borda and Aatun were set apart for expansion of

Aabadi area of UIT, Bhilwara and simultaneously, equal chunk of

land was set apart in the villages Pur and Sakariya Kheda to

compensate the reduction in the Charagah land. Challenge is also

laid to the orders dated 09.12.2019 (Annex.8), whereby the State

Government has granted approval to the said proposal and the

order dated 20.12.2019 (Annex.9) passed by the District Collector,

Bhilwara, whereby the chunk of land has been entered into the

name of UIT, Bhilwara in the Revenue record.

Learned counsel Mr. R.S. Choudhary, representing the

petitioners, vehemently and fervently contended that it was

mandatory to take consent of the Gram Panchayat under Rule 7 of

the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 (for short, 'the

Rules of 1955') before setting apart the pasture land for the

expansion of Aabadi land of the UIT, Bhilwara. However, the

impugned proposal dated 18.10.2019 was issued without seeking

consent of the Gram Panchayat.

It was further submitted that initially the UIT, Bhilwara

issued a public notice dated 11.10.2019 inviting objections from

all concerned persons regarding conversion of the land in question

and the villagers of Gram Panchayat Aatun submitted their

objections, but without considering the same, the conversion

order has been passed. He further submitted that as much as 132

bighas of compensatory land has been allotted in the Village

(3 of 7) [CW-7847/2020]

Sankariya Kheda, which is at a distance of 30 km. from the Village

Aatun and thus, entire process is grossly illegal and arbitrary.

He placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this

court in the case of Jetha Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

& Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.8816/2011 decided

on 16.05.2012] and urged that pasture land cannot be divested

for any other purpose and the classification thereof can only be

changed by the competent authority strictly in accordance with

the relevant statues and before doing so, the impact assessment

has to be made because the livelihood of the villagers is

dependent on animal husbandry and reduction of pasture land

area would have serious adverse impact on the natural grazing

resources of the villages. Mr. Choudhary submitted that the

impugned orders in addition to being in contravention of Rules

have been passed without undertaking any survey of this nature

and thus, the same are liable to be quashed.

Per contra Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Senior Advocate-

cum-AAG, representing the UIT, Bhilwara, and Mr. Sunil Beniwal,

learned AAG, representing the Revenue Department, urged that

during the visit of Hon'ble Chief Minister of Rajasthan, complaints

were raised that large number of houses in the Village Pur had

been damaged on account of mining activities and thus, the

concerned villagers had to be relocated. Accordingly, a plan was

chalked out to declassify and convert about 478 bighas of pasture

land from the Villages Pur, Borda and Aatun for extension of

Aabadi area of the UIT, Bhilwara. They submitted that the State

Government is unquestionably empowered to exercise jurisdiction

under the Rules of 1955 to convert and divest pasture land for

other usage. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by a

(4 of 7) [CW-7847/2020]

Division Bench of this court in the case of Gulab Chand & Ors.

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

No.4117/2002 decided on 02.05.2007], wherein, import of

Rule 7 of the Rules of 1955 was considered and it was held that

the word "may" appearing in sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 regarding

consultation with the Panchayat cannot be read as "shall". Rule 7

does not mandate the Collector to consult the concerned Gram

Panchayat in all cases of declassification of pasture land for

allotment for agricultural or non-agricultural purposes. It was also

submitted that major chunk of compensatory land to

recompensate the loss of Charagah land has been allotted in the

Gram Panchayat Pur itself and thus, no adverse impact will result

on the natural grazing resources of these villagers.

We have heard and considered the submissions

advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned orders and

other material placed on record. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1955,

which reads as below, empowers the District Collector and the

State Government, as the case may be, to change classification of

pasture land for agricultural or non-agricultural purposes.

"7. Allotment or setting apart of Pasture Land - (1) the Collector may, in consultation with the Panchayat, change the classification of any pasture land, as defined in sub-section (28) of Section 5 of the Act or any pasture land set apart under section 92 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act of 1956) as unoccupied culturable Government land (Sawai Chak), for allotment for agricultural or any non- agricultural purposes :

(5 of 7) [CW-7847/2020]

Provided that in case where the area of the land sought to be so allotted or set apart exceeds 4 hectares, the Collector shall obtain prior permission of the State Government:

Provided also that any such land, falling within the boundary limits of the Jaipur Region as defined in the Jaipur Development Authority Act. 1982 (Act No. 25 of 1982 within the periphery of 2 km. of a municipality, shall not be allotted except for the purpose of a public utility institution or for expansion of abadi.

(2) Where classification of any pasture land is changed under sub-rule (1). the Collector may set -apart an equal area of unoccupied culturable Government land, if available as pasture land in the same village.

The requirement of consultation with the Gram

Panchayat under Rule 7(1) is directory as has been held by the

Division Bench of this court in the case of Gulab Chand (supra).

That apart, the fact remains that with the increase in the urban

population, the need for acquiring additional lands for expansion

of Aabadi areas becomes imminent and thus, it is unavoidable to

declassify and acquire the pasture lands from adjoining villages so

that the Aabadi expansion of the cities can be undertaken in a

systematic and organized manner. If this systematic development

is not resorted to, the burgeoning populace would indulge in

making encroachments, which in turn would lead to problems of

larger magnitude.

However, at the same time, the development of Aabadi

areas cannot be done in an arbitrary manner and the grazing

lands cannot be totally diminished and appropriate compensatory

(6 of 7) [CW-7847/2020]

land has to be allotted for the declassified pasture areas. A

perusal of the proposal (Annex.4) dated 18.10.2019 forwarded

from the office of the District Collector, Bhilwara to the Principal

Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Rajasthan clearly

indicates that the District Collector took care to recommend

setting apart of an equivalent chunk of land to compensate the

loss caused to the grazing area on account of declassification. In

the final order dated 09.12.2019, the State Government has also

approved the proposal of the District Collector and as a

consequence, by order dated 20.12.2019, relevant Revenue

entries have been made, whereby 478 bighas pasture land from

revenue villages Pur, Borda and Aatun was declassified and

converted for expansion of Aabadi area of UIT and equivalent

chunk of land situated in the Villages Pur and Sakariya Kheda

were set apart for being used as Gochar (pasture). The reply of

the respondents clearly indicates that the District Collector,

Bhilwara has diligently taken care to ensure that equivalent chunk

of land is allotted for offsetting the loss caused to the Charagah

land of the Villages Pur, Borda and Aatun. Additional documents

have been filed on record, which include two notifications dated

09.01.2020 and 14.02.2020, whereby these areas have been

notified for expansion/extension of Aabadi of UIT Bhilwara. As per

the judgment rendered in the case of Gulab Chand (supra), there

is no mandate of law that the District Collector should hold prior

consultation with the Village Gram Panchayat before changing

classification of pasture land by exercising powers under Rule 7(1)

of the Rules of 1955. Otherwise also, the present case is one,

where the State Government has directed declassification of the

pasture land and not the District Collector. Thus, the provisions

(7 of 7) [CW-7847/2020]

contained in Rule 7 of the Rules of 1955 do not come to the aid of

the petitioners in their endeavour to challenge the impugned

orders, which prima facie, do not suffer from any error either

factual or legal.

As a consequence, we do not find any merit in this writ

petition, which is rejected as such.

                                   (KULDEEP MATHUR),J                                        (SANDEEP MEHTA),J


                                    89-Pramod/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)