Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Satya Narayan vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ... on 21 May, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:26557-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16362/2017

Satya Naryan son of Khem Raj Ojha, resident of Hanuman
Darwaja, Raja Ji Ka Kareda, Tehsil Kareda, District Bhilwara.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary,
         Revenue Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       The District Collector, Bhilwara.
3.       The Tehsildar, Kareda, District Bhilwara
4.       The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kareda, District Bhilwara.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Manvendra Singh Bhati, Advocate
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. SS Ladrecha, AAG
                                   Mr. Ravindra Jhala, AAAG



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

21/05/2025 (Per Hon'ble Mr. Sandeep Shah, J)

The petitioner has filed the present petition as Public Interest

Litigation with the following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction,

(i) The land situated in Original Khasra No.2901 and New Khasra no.4096 ad measuring 8.10 Bighas being Gair Mumkin Nadi be restored to its original;

(ii) Further the respondents be directed to take steps in furtherance of the Tehsildar report dated 16.07.2016 (Annexure 7) in terms of the Judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagpal Singh's case so as to preserve and protect the catchment area;

[2025:RJ-JD:26557-DB] (2 of 8) [CW-16362/2017]

(iii) For the above purposes the conversion order dated 18.12.1982 and the mutation entries of original Khasra No.2901 and New Khasra No.4096 may kindly be quashed and set aside;

(iv) To remove the encroachment and construction over the gair mumkin nadi land in original Khasra No.2901 and New Khasra no.4096; and

(v) any other relief that the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed."

2. As per the averments made in the petition, the original

khasra No.2901 of Gram Panchayat, Tehsil Kareda, District

Bhilwara comprised of 8 bighas of land and the same was shown

as 'gair mumkin nadi' and 'rasta'. It has been asserted that post

settlement proceedings, the khasra above-mentioned was

bifurcated into three different khasra nos. and khasra No.4096 ad

measuring 4 bighas was created which was part of the original

khasra No.2901. The petitioner submits that on 14 th October 1982,

the Gram Panchayat drew a resolution for conversion of various

khasras in Bilanam and allotment through abadi for allotment to

various landless and poor persons and for other ancillary

purposes. The proposal was passed and subsequently approved by

the Deputy Collector, Bhilwara by way of order dated 18th

December 1982 passed by the District Collector, whereby 16

khasras (including khasra No.4096) were converted into abadi and

allotted to the Gram Panchayat concerned after payment of

requisite fees and post that the correction in the revenue record

was also made which is in existence till date. It is the case of the

petitioner that he submitted various representations against

misuse of funds by the Gram Panchayat and for challenging the

[2025:RJ-JD:26557-DB] (3 of 8) [CW-16362/2017]

conversion in question and post that the Tehsildar Kareda has

prepared a report dated 16th July 2016 (Annex. 7 to the writ

petition), wherein he admitted the entire facts and stated that the

4.10 bigha of the khasra no.4096 was affected in view of the

judgment passed in Abdul Rahman's case. The petitioner has thus

filed the present petition with the prayers as stated above.

3. The respondent-State Government on the other hand have

filed a reply and justified the conversion order which was done

way back in the year 1982 and asserted that the same was done

for the benefit of the public at large, considering the fact of

increase in the abadi and thus the requirement of additional land

for settlement of people was necessary. The respondents in their

reply have stated as under:-

"That land measuring 8.07 bighas of Khasra No.2901 was recorded as "naadi" in the revenue records of Gram Panchayat Kareda, Tehsil Kareda, District Bhilwara. The same remained to be recorded as "naadi" till the Settlement Operations were conducted. During settlement, the numbers of Khasra No.2901 was divided into three parts with new numbers. Two parts(Khasra No.4079 and 4080) comprising of 4 bighas came to be recorded in the name of "Public Works Department" being the land of

"रास्ता" and "iVjh". One part (Khasra No.4096) measuring

4.07 bighas came to be recorded as "bilaanam" and nature of the land was recorded as "gair mumkin".

That after the same, the entries in the revenue record went on to be copied as such only and the land remained to be entered as "bilaanam". In the circumstances, when in the Year 1982, a proposal was sent by the Gram Panchayat to the State Government, the revenue record mentioned the land to be "bilaanam" only and therefore, the same was allowed to be converted as "aabadi" by the State Government.

[2025:RJ-JD:26557-DB] (4 of 8) [CW-16362/2017]

After being converted as "aabadi", the Gram Panchayat has got a bus stand and a Rest House constructed on the land. A part of the land has even been allotted for residential purposes by the Gram Panchayat and also for some shops in the bus stand premises. As of date, 2.07 bighas out of 4 bighas have been used for the aforementioned constructions and 2 bighas of land remain vacant."

4. The respondent have further raised a ground of gross-delay

as after 35 years of the conversion and allotment to various

persons as also post creation of third party rights, the present

petition has been filed without specifying any reason to justify the

delay.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner while repeating the

content of the writ petition has asserted that the allotment made

for the abadi purpose in the year 1982 was expressly illegal and

against the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in Abdul

Rahman's case and further stated that the report of the Tehsildar

dated 16th July 2016 speaks volume about the same and

therefore, the conversion order needs to be quashed and set

aside.

6. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the

State Government as well as the learned counsel appearing for the

private respondent have supported the order passed in year 1982

and have stated that the same has been done considering the

requirement of the village for extension of abadi. It was further

argued that the land in question was not being used as naadi for

the years together and post allotment various constructions have

come up for which pattas have already been issued, details qua

[2025:RJ-JD:26557-DB] (5 of 8) [CW-16362/2017]

which have been provided by the respondent Gram Panchayat in

their reply.

7. The learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat has stated that

in total seven pattas have been granted and even the Gram

Panchayat has constructed certain shops and a rest house for the

benefit of the general public and now after a delay of 35 years,

the allotments made to the patta holders should not be canceled.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner has

essentially filed the petition for writ in the nature of mandamus

however, prior to filing of the writ petition in question, no

representation whatsoever has been given by the petitioner. As far

as the petition for mandamus been preceded by a representation

as also the representation being a sine qua non for filing of

petition for writ in nature of mandamus is concerned, the law in

this regard is no long as res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court in

case of "Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment

Corporation v. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited "

reported in 2013(5) SCC 470 held as under:-

"In order to maintain the writ of mandamus, the first and foremost requirement is that the petition must not be frivolous, and must be filed in good faith. Additionally, the applicant must make a demand which is clear, plain and unambiguous. It must be made to an officer having the requisite authority to perform the act demanded. Furthermore, the authority against whom mandamus is issued, should have rejected the demand earlier. Therefore, a demand and its subsequent refusal, either by words, or by conduct, are necessary to satisfy the court that the opposite party is determined to ignore the demand of the applicant

with respect to the enforcement of his legal right."

[2025:RJ-JD:26557-DB] (6 of 8) [CW-16362/2017]

9. A bare perusal of the alleged representations submitted by

the petitioner which have been marked as Annex. 6 to the writ

petition will reveal that there is no whisper of even the khasra

number in question or any other details in the same and rather

the nature of the representation suggests that they were filed

being aggrieved with regard to the working of the Sarpanch in

question over a particular political party. Thus in essence, the

petition has been filed without filing of any representation raising

the issue in hand and thus on this ground alone the writ petition

deserves dismissal.

10. The petitioner has further not been able to explain the gross-

delay in approaching this Court by way of filing of the present

Public Interest Litigation inasmuch as the land was set apart for

allotment for abadi way back on 18th December 1982 and till the

date of filing of petition in the year 2017, no efforts whatsoever

were made by the petitioner to approach this Hon'ble Court. A

specific objection in this regard has been raised by the respondent

in their reply. However, the petitioner has not been able to rebut

the same. The delay takes significance in view of the fact that

admittedly, post conversion into abadi, pattas have been issued

over the land in question and various pakka constructions have

also come up upon the land in question which fact is not disputed

by the learned counsel for the petitioner and is clear from perusal

of the report submitted by the Gram Panchayat along with

additional affidavit filed by the respondent.

11. As regards the judgment of Abdul Rahman's case vs. State of

Rajasthan 2004 (4) WLC 435/2004 SCC Online Raj 676 is

concerned, the same was a case wherein issue with regard to a

[2025:RJ-JD:26557-DB] (7 of 8) [CW-16362/2017]

proposal being sent for conversion of a land as abadi was there

and the final order was not passed. It was not even a case of

gross delay like the present case in hand. The Division Bench of

this Hon'ble Court had constituted a Committee and after

considering the recommendation of the Committee, the order was

passed while directing the State Government to consider the

recommendation of the Committee and chalk out a plan to take

effective steps for restoring the catchment area to their original

shape.

12. One of the recommendation of the Committee provides as

under:-

"(1) all land shown as drainage channels like nala, rivers, tributaries etc. as on 15th August 1947 should be declared as Government land. Any conversions made after 15th August 1947 should be declared illegal. The relevant Act and the Rules must be amended accordingly".

13. It is thus clear that for declaring the allotment made or conversion made as illegal, the Committee had directed the amendment of relevant Act and the Rules framed therein and the High Court had rather directed the State Government to consider the recommendations and chalk out a plan to take effective steps for restoration of the catchment areas to their original condition.

14. The petitioner in the present case has not been able to show

any such provision made in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act or

the rules framed thereunder or under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act

whereby the allotment made in the year 1982 could be declared

illegal. Furthermore no fact with regard to any reference being

filed under Section 82 of the Land Revenue Act has been brought

to the notice of this Court.

[2025:RJ-JD:26557-DB] (8 of 8) [CW-16362/2017]

15. Thus the judgment of Abdul Rehman, referred to supra,

would be of no aid to the petitioner as the case in hand is of

allotment made way back in year 1982 and not being agitated for

years together. Thus on the ground of delay itself the writ petition