Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shambhu Singh vs State Of Raj (2025:Rj-Jd:16010) on 26 March, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:16010]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 302/2001
Bhawar Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 257/2001
Daulat Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 303/2001
Jodh Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 339/2001
Shambhu Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet R. Dave
For Respondent(s) : None
(Downloaded on 26/03/2025 at 09:50:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:16010] (2 of 3) [CW-302/2001]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
26/03/2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
None appears for the respondent.
Since all the four writ petitions arise out of a common order
passed by the District Collector, Rajsamand, therefore, they are
being disposed of by this common judgment.
The present writ petitions have been filed against the order
dated 14.01.2000 passed by the Collector, Rajsamand, wherein,
the allotment of the plots made in favour of the petitioners has
been cancelled.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the four
petitioners were allotted the plots by the Gram Panchayat along
with 16 other persons vide common order, after following the due
process of law. However, the order of cancellation has been passed
only in case of the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that
similarly situated persons approached this Court by way of filing
writ petitions and their writ petitions were disposed of by this
Court by giving directions to those petitioners to appear before the
District Collector, Rajsamand for reconsideration of the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present
matters may also be remanded back to the District Collector,
Rajsamand in light of the observations made by this Court in the
other cases and the District Collector, Rajsamand may be directed
to reconsider the matters for allotment of the plots in question.
Learned counsel submits that this Court has passed interim orders
[2025:RJ-JD:16010] (3 of 3) [CW-302/2001]
in favour of the petitioners and the same are continuing since
2001, therefore, the same may be continued till the District
Collector decides the matter afresh.
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone
through the relevant record of the case.
The allotment order was made in favour of the petitioners,
which is clear from Annexure-1 and it is also clear that along with
the petitioners, there were other persons in whose favour the
allotments of plots were made. In all the cases of similarly
situated persons to the petitioners, the matter was remanded
back to the District Collector for reexamination of the same and
passing an appropriate order after giving opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners.
This Court feels that the petitioners are entitled for the same
treatment.
In view of the discussions made above, the writ petitions are
allowed and the order dated 14.09.2000 passed by the District
Collector, Rajsamand is quashed and set aside and the matter is
remanded back to the District Collector, Rajsamand to decide the
matter afresh, after giving opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners, in accordance with law. Till the District Collector,
Rajsamand decides the matter afresh, the interim protection
granted by this Court shall remain in-currency.
The stay applications and other pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
12-SanjayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
