High Court Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Devi Lal vs State & Ors on 19 December, 2008

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Devi Lal vs State & Ors on 19 December, 2008
                D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10116/2008
               (Devi Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

                       DATE OF ORDER : 19.12.2008

             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KAPADIA
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI


Mr. Deelip Kawadia for the petitioners.


         Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.



         Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the

validity of Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956

and Gazette Notification dated 04.07.08, issued by the State

Government to the effect of inclusion of the village Neta Ka Guda

in Tehsil Mavli (Distt. Udaipur) from Tehsil Nathdwara (Distt.

Rajsamand).



         In our view, the powers under Section 16 of the Rajasthan

Land Revenue Act are quite inclusive and it is within the domain

of the State Government to evaluate division, sub-division or

tehsil    by     delimiting       the    existing   geographical      boundaries.

Challenge to the provisions of Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land

Revenue Act after a lapse of considerable period of about 52

years, is nothing but abuse of the process of law. So far as

prayer     for     entering        the     territorial   limit   of   the   village

as     well      as   its    inclusion      in      Mavali       and Nathdwara,

both      of     which      are     adjoining,      is   a   policy   decision   of
                                  -2-

the State Government issued under Section 16 of the Rajasthan

Land Revenue Act. The State can do so, if the exigencies are

required. This court cannot go into the decisions of the State

Government with regard to the policy decision in the matter of

creation of division, sub-division, tehsil etc. However, by virtue

of Section 16(B) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, the

petitioner   is   free   to   make   representation   to   the   State

Government for alteration of the boundaries.



      Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed summarily.




(DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J.                       (A.M. KAPADIA), J.

ms rathore