Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhartiya Govansh Raks. Sam. Parishad ... vs Secretary To The Reve. Dept. And Ors ... on 3 September, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:36749-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3058/2016
1. Bhartiya Govansh Rakshan Samvardhan Parishad, Civil Line,
Jamma Lal Bajaj Marg, Bharat Mata Mandir, Jaipur,
Rajasthan through its President (Rajasthan) Shri Jai
Bhadaur Singh Shekhawat, aged about 90 years, S/o Shri
Kalyan Singh, resident of B-11, Kalyan Kunj, Sardar Patel
Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Gopi Krishna S/o Shri Bajaranga Lal, aged about 51 years,
Tehsil Coordinator, Sardarshahar, Bhartiya Govansh Rakshan
Samvardhan Parishad, resident of Sardarshahar, District
Churu.
3. Someshswaranand Giri @ Varishta Mahamandleshwar Swami
Shri Someshswaranand Giri, S/o Shri Prakash Anand Giri,
aged about 61 years, District Coordinator r/o Samkaraharya
Ashram, Biragi Camp Shekhupura, Kankhal, Hardwar,
Uttarakhand 249408. At present Siddh Mukh, Rajgarh,
District Jila Sanrakshak.
4. Heera Lal S/o Shri Norang Ram, aged about 55 years, r/o
Shivani Bas, Ward No.1, Sardarshahar, Churu, Sardarshahar
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Secretary to the Revenue Department, State of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Churu.
3. The Sub Division Officer, Sardarshahar.
4. Land Acquisition Officer (SDM), Sardarshahar.
5. Shri Gaushala Samiti, Gaushala Bas, Sardarshahar through
its Secretary (Mantri).
6. Shri Sardarshahar Gaushala Samiti, 14 Netaji Subhash Road
4th Floor, Kolkata through its Joint Secretary and Trustee.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Aniket Tater
(Downloaded on 09/09/2024 at 08:38:38 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:36749-DB] (2 of 6) [CW-3058/2016]
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Abhishek Mehta,
Mr. Vinay Kothari and Mr. Ayush Goyal
Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Trilok Joshi and
Mr. Vipul Dharnia
Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG assisted by
Mr. Ravindra Jala
Mr. Sanjeet Purohit assisted by
Mr. Mudit Nagpal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
03/09/2024
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
This writ petition (PIL) has been filed by the Bhartiya
Govansh Rakshan Samvardhan Parishad through its President
(Rajasthan) who was aged about 90 years in the year 2016. The
Tehsil Coordinator of the Parishad, namely, Gopi Krishna, the
District Coordinator, namely, Someshswaranand Giri @ Varishta
Mahamandleshwar Swami Shri Someshwaranand Giri and one Hira
Lal have also supported the cause espoused by the Parishad.
2. These petitioners are seeking a restrain order against
disbursement of compensation to the respondent nos. 5 and 6.
They are also seeking a direction upon the State respondents for
holding an enquiry and investigation as to whether the respondent
nos. 5 and 6 are entitled for compensation with a further prayer
for recovery of the amount of compensation, if any, paid to them
with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The petitioners are
also seeking a direction for utilization of the compensation amount
for development of the Sardarshahar City.
[2024:RJ-JD:36749-DB] (3 of 6) [CW-3058/2016]
3. This writ petition was admitted by an order dated 11 th April
2017 and directed to be listed in the category of final hearing in
the weekly cause list in the week commencing from 3 rd July 2017.
Thereafter, this writ petition was listed on several occasions but it
was not heard and finally decided for one or the other reason. It
also needs to be indicated that on 5th May 2016 an interim order
was passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court restraining the
State respondents from releasing compensation to the respondent
nos. 5 and 6.
4. Manifold arguments have been advanced while pressing this
writ petition (PIL) and the judgments in (i) "Baleshwar Tiwari
(Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. vs. Sheo Jatan Tiwary and Ors." (1997) 5
SCC 112 and (ii) "Guru Amarjit Singh vs. Rattan Chand and Ors."
(1993) 4 SCC 349 are cited by Mr. Manoj Bhandari, the learned
senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. However, in view
of the materials brought on record which indicate that there had
been proceedings with respect to the lands comprised under
Khasra no.196/1 measuring 40 bighas and 14 biswa, khasra no.
198 measuring about 9 bighas and 1 biswa, khasra no. 200/1
measuring about 102 bighas and 12 biswa and khasra no. 2002/1
measuring about 208 bighas, we have formed an opinion that this
writ petition is liable to be dismissed. We further find that there is
a serious challenge to maintainability of the writ petition on the
ground of suppression of material facts, as also disputed questions
of fact pleaded by the writ petitioners.
5. According to the petitioners, lands in Misal File No.23/1940
in Sardarshahar town was ad-measuring about 3574 bighas were
declared as agricultural lands comprised under various khasras
[2024:RJ-JD:36749-DB] (4 of 6) [CW-3058/2016]
(more particularly disclosed in paragraph no. 4.2 of the writ
petition). The petitioners have further pleaded that such lands
were shown as Gochar lands. On the other hand, the respondents
have brought materials on record to demonstrate that the
proceeding under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on
Agricultural Holding Act, 1973 was initiated against Shri
Sardarshahar Gaushala Samiti but the said proceeding was
dropped by the order of the competent Authority. And the order
dated 19th May 1975 passed in this regard was never challenged
and the same has attained finality. On 6th July 1989, an Award was
made for acquisition of a part of the aforementioned lands
pursuant to the acquisition for RIICO in the year 1982 and for
Krishi Upaj Mandi in the year 1984. There is no dispute that the
Award dated 6th July 1989 was passed in favour of the respondent-
Samiti and no challenge has been laid by any private party to that
Award. However, a reference was made by the State Government
challenging the title of the respondent-Samiti but the same came
to be rejected by the Collector.
6. Later on, a notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued for acquisition of 355 bighas and
11 biswa lands. In the said proceeding, objections under Section
5-A were invited and thereafter the notification under Section 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued.
7. Now, in view of the aforementioned proceedings a challenge
laid by the writ petitioners to the Khatedari rights of the Samiti
cannot be entertained. In fact, the appeal preferred by the
petitioners under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,
1956 against the order of mutation in favour of RIICO was
[2024:RJ-JD:36749-DB] (5 of 6) [CW-3058/2016]
dismissed by an order dated 1st June 2016. This is also a matter of
record that about three years after filing of this writ petition, the
petitioner no.3 filed FIR No.308 against the trustees of the Samiti
and after the investigation a negative Final Report has been filed
on 30th January 2020 in the Court of the ACJM, Sardarshahar,
Churu.
8. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, the learned senior counsel for the
petitioners referring to the decisions in "Baleshwar Tewari (Dead)
by Lrs." and "Guru Amarjit Singh" would submit that entries in the
revenue records are not the proof of title. The learned senior
counsel would further submits that by fabricating the records and
through the mutual understanding between the respondent nos. 5
and 6 the compensation amount is sought to be misappropriated
by them.
9. This is too well settled that the orders passed by the
statutory authority and the civil Court are not open to challenge in
the public interest litigation. Even a writ petition shall not be
maintainable unless there is no provision for appeal or/and
revision under the Statute. For promoting justice, the Court is
required to prevent crafty invasions and must refuse interference
in the matter wherever necessary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that the Judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that
behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice,
vested interest and/or publicity seeking effort is not lurking (refer,
Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of West Bengal, (2004) 3 SCC
349).
10. The filing of negative Final Report by the police after the
investigation in FIR No. 308 is one instance that may indicate that
[2024:RJ-JD:36749-DB] (6 of 6) [CW-3058/2016]
the petitioners, particularly, the petitioner No.3 had made reckless
statements. We further find that in view of the order passed under
the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act,
1973 the questions raised over entitlement of the Samiti to
receive compensation seems to be prima facie untenable.
11. For the foregoing reasons, D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.3058/2016 is dismissed. All pending applications are also
disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J
S-130-KshamaD/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
