JUDGMENT
B.J. Shethna, J.
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the trial court be ordered to decide the petitioner’s case for regularisation of land as early as possible preferably within a period of six months and meanwhile, till the decision of the case, the status quo regarding possession over the land in question be ordered to be maintained.
2. The case of the petitioner in this case is that he had applied for regularisation of the land, which is purchased in 1984. The regularisation application is made somewhere in 1992 or 1993 before the S.D.O. North, Bikaner, who is not party to this petition.
3. The submission of the learned Counsel Sh. Goyal appearing for the petitioner was that if the construction made by the petitioner over the land is dismantled and if he is evicted from the land, then, his regularisation application pending before the S.D.O. North, Bikaner would become infructuous and meaningless, therefore, it was submitted that the S.D.O. North, Bikaner be directed to decide the regularisation application made by the petitioner at the earliest and till then, the status quo regarding possession be maintained by the parties.
4. Before appreciating the submission made by Shri Goyal, a few facts are required to be stated.
5. Firstly, it is an agricultural land which is used for the non-agricultural purpose by the petitioner by illegally putting up the construction and taking water and electricity connection also, thereby running a ‘Dhaba’ of tea etc. for his livelihood.
6. Secondly, the regularisation application (Annex.3) is made somewhere in 1992 or 1993 as stated by the learned Counsel Sh. Goyal, before the S.D.O. North, Bikaner, which was filed only after the Nayab Tehsildar, Bikaner passed an order on 24.12.1991 (Annex.2) directing the petitioner to remove the illegal construction made by him from the land in question within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. It has also been stated in the petition that the said order of Nayab Tehsildar has been challenged in a separate proceeding, but no particulars are given for the same in the petition.
7. Thirdly, on making regularisation application, the petitioner deposited regularisation fee of Rs. 4163/- in the State Treasury on 16.11.1993. On this basis, he wants the regularisation proceedings to be decided at the earliest, which alleged to have been pending before the S.D.O. North, Bikaner since long. It is nowhere stated in the petition that any attempts were even made by the petitioner before the SDO, North, Bikaner to expedite the regularisation proceedings.
8. It appears from the above facts that though the Nayab Tehsildar, Bikaner by his order dated 24.12.1991 (Annex.2) directed the petitioner to remove the illegal construction from the land in question within 15 days, so far for the period of almost seven years, the petitioner successfully managed to keep the possession of the land with construction on it intact. Admittedly, it is a Government land, therefore, it is nothing but an encroachment made by the petitioner, who claimed to have purchased the land way back in 1984 from one Mubarak Khan by a registered sale deed, which itself was illegal. After managing to remain in possession for years together, the petitioner wants to claim benefit of that fortuitous circumstance in his favour with the intervention of this Court by making a prayer that the trial court i.e. S.D.O. North, Bikaner (who is not party to this petition) be directed to decide the application of the petitioner for regularisation of the land at the earliest and till then, the status quo regarding possession over the land in question be maintained. The extra ordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not meant for such type of person, who first encroached upon the government land and by remaining on the land by hook or crook for all these years, wants his possession to be protected.
9. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance or merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, it fails and is dismissed.
10. The office is directed to take out the copy of this order and forward it to the respondent No. 2- Nayab Tehsildar, Revenue, Bikaner to immediately implement the order dated 24.12.1991 passed by him directing the petitioner to remove the construction from the land in question within a period of 15 days, and take possession of the land, forthwith.
