Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Neetu vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:39868) on 9 September, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:39868]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15431/2025
Neetu W/o Shri Kailash Chandra, Aged About 67 Years, R/o
Village Rohat, Tehsil Rohat, District Pali, Presently Residing At
Bichala Bas, Bhadwasiya, Jodhpur, Tehsil Jodhpur, District
Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Revenue, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
Raj.
2. District Collector, Pali.
3. Sub Division Officer, Rohat, District Pali.
4. Tehsildar, Rohat, District Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh
Mr. Ramawtar Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
09/09/2025
1. The petitioner was member of the erstwhile Co-operative
Society which has been dissolved on account of being non-
functional.
2. Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner was having Khatedari rights qua the land in his
possession being member of the Society. He added that so far as
dissolution of the society is concerned, he is not aggrieved, but he
is aggrieved because the respondents are not passing orders of
allotment/regularization of land in terms of Rule 20(3) of The
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 06:57:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39868] (2 of 4) [CW-15431/2025]
Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural
Purposes) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of
1970).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue
involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the
judgment dated 13.05.2025 passed in a bunch of writ petitions led
by Jugal Kishor Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.5346/2025.
4. The petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance
that the application which he has filed before the concerned Sub
Divisional Officer/Collector is pending and though some steps have
been taken up but the same have not yet been finalized and in the
meantime the Tehsildar has initiated proceedings under section 91
of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act of 1956') and is hell bent to evict him treating him to
be encroacher.
5. Learned counsel submitted that if the Tehsildar dispossess
the petitioner in furtherance of the proceedings under Section 91
of the Act of 1956, not only the petitioner will be rendered
landless but also his rights to get allotment/regularization in terms
of Rule 20(3) of the Rules of 1970 will be severely impaired.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that once the
Co-operative Society has been dissolved, its members have no
right to continue with the possession of the land and to cultivate
the same. He submitted that petition be therefore, dismissed. He,
however, did not dispute the position that the petitioner has
moved application under Rule 20(3) of the Rules of 1970.
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 06:57:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39868] (3 of 4) [CW-15431/2025]
7. Learned counsel for the respondents was, however, not in a
position to dispute the aforesaid position as has been held by this
Court in the case of Jugal Kishor (supra).
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
consideration of sub-rule (3) of Rule 20 of the Rules of 1970, this
Court is of the view that petitioner has a right of getting allotment
of the land being member of the dissolved Co-operative Society. If
he is rejected from his possession, his right of allotment under
Rule 20(3) of the Rules of 1970 will be jeopardized for want of
possession.
9. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of while directing the
District Collector before whom the application for allotment is said
to be pending to expeditiously consider the same in accordance
with law. It shall be required of the Tehsildar being member of the
Land Advisory Committee to conduct a survey and send his report
to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer, who shall thereafter make
a recommendation for allotment of land to the District Collector in
accordance with law.
10. It shall be required of the District Collector to complete the
above exercise within a period of six months from today.
11. In case the District Collector or the competent authority is of
the opinion that the land cannot be allotted to the petitioner, he
shall pass speaking order under intimation to the petitioner
against which his rights to seek legal remedies shall stand
reserved.
12. In case, the petitioner is found entitled for the allotment,
requisite order shall necessarily be passed within the aforesaid
period of six months.
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 06:57:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39868] (4 of 4) [CW-15431/2025]
13. The petitioner shall not be dispossessed until his application
for allotment under sub-rule (3) of Rule 20 of the Rules of 1970 is
decided.
14. The respondents - State shall not create third party rights
qua the land in petitioner's possession.
15. Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
3-himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 06:57:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
