1
24
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4408/2009.
Miyal Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Order :: 4th September 2009.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, for the petitioner.
...
BY THE COURT:
The petitioner has averred in this petition that one Smt.
Birjudi had a land bearing khasra No. 335 admeasuring about
50 bighas, allegedly bequeathed by her father; that earlier, the
Tehsildar issued notice under Section 91 of the Rajasthan
Land Revenue Act treating her a trespasser and, by the order
dated 04.08.1981, directed her eviction and also imposed the
fine; that the appeal taken before the Additional Collector was
partly allowed maintaining the order of eviction but setting
aside the order of fine; that, however, the second appeal taken
before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur was allowed
on 03.04.1986 holding that there was a patta in favour of the
appellant who was in possession of the land in question before
coming into force of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. It is
submitted that despite the order so passed by the Revenue
Appellate Authority on 03.04.1986, the land in question was
not entered in the name of Smt. Birjudi and though the State
2
Government, through the Tehsildar, filed a revision petition
before the Board of Revenue but the same was dismissed on
11.02.1994; and then, the writ petition, CWP No. 3099/1994,
filed before this Court was dismissed on 19.07.2000 and even
the restoration application was also dismissed on 16.01.2004.
According to the petitioner, in the meantime, by the order
dated 29.05.1993, 5 bighas of the land out of the land in
question came to be allotted to the District Education Officer
for construction of store and staff quarters.
The case of the petitioner is that the land in question
had always been in possession of Smt. Birjudi who, in the
year 2004, divided the same into different plots and sold the
same to various persons. According to the petitioner, he had
purchased a piece of land admeasuring 60 x 60 feet from Smt.
Birjudi by the registered sale deed dated 16.02.2005; and
another plot of land admeasuring 60 x 60 feet that was sold by
Smt. Birjudi to Mangi Lal and Ram Niwas on 16.02.2005 was
also purchased by the petitioner by the registered sale deed
dated 31.10.2006. It is also submitted that upon the
explanation having been sought by the Additional Collector,
the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Nagaur
stated, by the communication dated 04.03.2009, that the
required building had already been constructed at a different
3
place and, therefore, the land allotted under the order dated
29.05.1993 was not required and rather, suggested that the
said allotment may be cancelled.
The petitioner contends that he is a bona fide purchaser
of the land in question and has acquired khatedri rights and all
the proceedings having been concluded in favour of his
predecessor, the authorities are not entitled to interfere with
the land in question. However, according to the petitioner,
upon the complaint made by one Sahdeo Singh, the
respondents authorities are harrasing him and are adamant to
dispossess him from the land in question. The prayer has
been made in this writ petition that the order dated 29.05.1993
may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be
directed to drop all the actions taken against the petitioner
treating him to be a trespasser over the land in question. It
has also been suggested during the course of arguments that
the proceedings in the FIR as referred by the authorities in the
communication dated 04.03.2009 have also come to an end
with negative final report having been filed.
Having given a thoughtful consideration to the
submissions as made by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
this Court is clearly of opinion that the petitioner is not entitled
to any relief in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
4
The submissions sought to be made by the petitioner
are essentially in the nature of seeking the relief of perpetual
injunction against the respondents from dispossessing him
from the land in question, and any consideration on such relief
essentially requires inquiry into the facts particularly regarding
the location of the land in question and the rights of the
petitioner and so also his alleged predecessor. Even the
challenge as sought to be given to the order dated 29.05.2003,
could be considered only if the petitioner is found having a
definite legal right existing in his favour.
The reliefs as claimed in this writ petition fundamentally
depend on inquiry into the facts and there appears no reason
to take up such inquiry in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Noteworthy it is that before filing this nature writ petition,
the petitioner has not even served a notice on the respondents
stating his grievance.
Exercise of writ jurisdiction in this matter is refused. The
writ petition stands rejected.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.
//Mohan//