Jagdish vs State & Ors on 28 January, 2009

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

                                                                     1

14

                 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2719/2006
                (Jagdish Bhadu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)



     Date of Order ::     28th January 2009.

           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

     Mr.M.S.Purohit, for the petitioner.
     Mr.D.K.Godara )
     Mr.Pappu Sangwa) for the respondents.

                                  ....

     BY THE COURT

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view

of the detailed order passed by this Court while rejecting the

contempt petition filed in this case (WCP No.160/2006) on 9th

inst., and in view of the reply submissions as made on behalf

of the respondents, the petitioner shall stand advised not to

proceed with this writ petition any further and to seek

appropriate remedies in accordance with law and, therefore,

seeks permission for the petitioner to withdraw this writ petition

with liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedies. Learned

counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the matter

stood concluded even before filing of this writ petition and the

petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

The facts have already been noticed while rejecting the

contempt petition as filed in this case on 09.01.2009; and,

while noticing the submissions as per the reply of the

respondents, this Court observed thus:

“Even when this Court has directed that
the respondent would not pass any order
unless the pending proceedings of
regularisation are decided, when the non-
petitioner has, prima facie, shown that prior
to the passing of the said order, the
application as moved by the petitioner for
regularization had already been ordered to be
consigned to record by the resolution dated
05.04.2006; and prior to that, encroachment
removal proceedings had been undertaken on
19.03.2006 and were approved on
20.03.2006, it cannot be accepted that the
non-petitioners have drawn all such
proceedings after passing of the order by this
Court. The photographs with bills dated
27.06.2006 and 25.06.2006 as produced on
record by the petitioner hardly appear to be of
evidence that non-petitioners did anything
after passing of the order by this Court. All the
proceedings as stated by the non-petitioners
essentially being those of the record of the
Gram Panchayat, cannot be assumed to be
fake or fabricated.

Noticeable it is that even as per the
averments in the writ petition, as back as on
08.02.2006, the Gram Panchayat had
informed the petitioner about the complaint
made by the villagers of his having a
possession on the public utility land and he
was called upon to produce evidence within
15 days and else Panchayat would be
removing the construction.”

In the present state of record, if the learned counsel for

the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw with liberty for the

petitioner to take recourse to appropriate remedies, this Court

is of opinion that such permission could be granted, of course,

while leaving it open for all the parties to take recourse to

appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

Subject to the aforesaid, this writ petition stands

dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.

(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.

s.soni

Leave a Comment Cancel