IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8440/2011
Decided On: 18.01.2013
Hukma Ram
Vs.
State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dinesh Maheshwari and Arun Bhansali, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. I.R. Choudhary, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, Government counsel
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
1. The petitioner, said to be a resident of village Dhigaria, Tehsil Deedwana, District Nagaur, has filed this petition as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) essentially stating the cause that some part of the land of his village, falling in a catchment area, has been encroached upon. The petitioner has averred that the land of Khasra No. 55 admeasuring 92 bighas 10 biswas, Khasra No. 59 admeasuring 1 bigha 5 biswas, Khasra No. 64 admeasuring 1 bigha 11 biswas and Khasra No. 80 admeasuring 21 bighas and 5 biswas at village Dhigaria is Gair Mumkin Agore land; and has alleged that out of the above-mentioned land, a part of the land, admeasuring 7 bighas 10 biswas as comprised in Khasra No. 55 has been "wrongly and illegally recorded in the Khatedari of Bheru Bhat". According to the petitioner, the land is a catchment area wherein no khatedari rights could have been conferred on anyone. The petitioner has further averred that besides the above, "some persons have illegally made encroachment on the part of the above land, which all encroachments have not been removed by the authorities of the respondents despite several representations." In the body of the petition, the names of the persons who have allegedly made the encroachment have been stated as Nanu Ram S/o Jaisa Ram Khati, Jeghmal S/o Shanker Lal Brahman, Kailash Chand S/o Ram Lal Brahman, Mangi Lal S/o Modu Ram Nai, Madana Ram S/o Bhera Ram Bhat. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief in the writ petition:
i. The respondents may be directed to remove all encroachment from all above land Khasra No. 55, 59, 64 & 80 of village Dhigaria and keep the above land free from any encroachment by ignoring the khatedari of Bheru Bhat in respect of 7 Bigha 10 Biswas of land of Khasra No. 55 of village Dhigaria.
ii. That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit by which the petitioner and villagers of his village Dhigaria may get full justice may also be granted.
2. In this petition, filed on 06.09.2011, show cause notices were ordered to be issued on 19.09.2011. The matter, thereafter, remained pending for quite some time for filing of the reply. The respondents, ultimately filed the reply on 07.01.2013. As regards paragraph 4(b) of the writ petition, the substance whereof has been narrated hereinabove, the respondents have not disputed the averments to the extent they are in conformity with the revenue record. As regards the other averments about non-removal of encroachments, the respondents have stated that as per the report of the Patwari concerned, encroachment made by various persons on the land of Khasra No. 55 have been removed in the presence of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Khojas and the police force. It has also been pointed out that as per the report of the Patwari concerned, in some of the cases, reference proceedings were said to be pending consideration before the Board of Revenue. It has also specifically been maintained that there is no encroachment on the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 59, 64 and 80. A copy of the report of Patwari has been annexed alongwith the reply as Annexure-R/1. We have gone through this report and the contents thereof could usefully be reproduced for ready reference as under:-
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to verify the facts including those relating to the references as stated in the report and to submit the rejoinder. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision in Jagpal Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1123 with the submission that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pronounced heavily against the trespassers and encroachers over the public land; and has passed the order that the encroachments ought to be removed and regulation of illegalities must not be permitted.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents, per contra, submits that so far as the present case is concerned, the removable encroachments have already been removed but in relation to the matters where reference proceedings are pending, the respondents could not have attempted to carry out any proceedings so as to over-reach the process of law.
5. Having given thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, we are clearly of the view that no purpose would be served by continuing with this petition, filed as a PIL matter.
6. We may in the first place observe that filing a matter as a public interest litigation presupposes that the petitioner does not carry any personal interest in the matter; and such litigation, for its very nature, stands distinguished from an ordinary adversary litigation. As a necessary corollary, in the ordinary course, a petitioner of PIL cannot be considered having a personal lis against any particular person. In the present case, to the extent the petitioner could be assumed to have genuinely brought before the Court the facts about existence of certain encroachment over the catchment area, the matter has, of course, been dealt with and the respondents have been called upon to answer. However, when the respondents have submitted a specific reply wherefrom it is made out that even if earlier there had been any laxity on their part, after filing of the petition and service of the notices, they have attended on the requirement of the duties and have removed the removable encroachments. These submissions cannot be ignored nor could be presumed to be false or incorrect.
7. As noticed, in relation to several of the persons, the Patwari has pointed out the fact that the reference proceedings are pending. The significant aspect of the matter is that out of the 5 names mentioned by the petitioner as the alleged encroachers, at least 4 such names do appear in the report in whose regard the reference cases are said to be pending; and the particulars with the number and date of the reference cases have also been given. Another noticeable aspect of the matter is that though the petitioner has named these persons as the alleged encroachers, he has not joined them as parties respondents in this writ petition. There appears no reason to now enter into any other aspect of the matter, particularly in view of the report of the Patwari, which we do not find any reason to discard or disbelieve.
8. There is yet another aspect of the matter wherefore we do not find it justified to continue with this PIL petition and that relates to the specific averment taken by the petitioner concerning one Bheru Bhat. The specific averment is to the effect that 7 bighas 10 biswas of land in Khasra No. 55 has wrongly and illegally been recorded in the khatedari of Bheru Bhat. As noticed, the relief has been claimed in this petition in the manner that the khatedari of Bheru Bhat should be ignored. The said Shri Bheru Bhat who, according to the admission of the petitioner himself, is a recorded khatedar, has not been joined as a party in this writ petition. This apart, we are clearly of the view that if there be any question about a khatedari in a revenue record, the same cannot ordinarily be adjudicated upon and decided in the summary proceedings like the present one.
9. There is no and there cannot be any doubt about the propositions in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagpal Singh's case (supra) but, on the fact situation, the present case turns out to be standing at a different footing. As noticed, according to the respondents, the removable encroachments have already been removed and other matters are said to be pending in reference proceedings. It is, of course, expected of the respondents to get such matters, as said to be involved in the reference proceedings, adjudicated upon and decided at the earliest and so also to ensure that no other encroachment on the catchment area in question comes up. Needless to observe that in case of any other grievance arising, the recourse to the appropriate proceedings could adequately be taken by all the concerned.
Subject to the observations foregoing, this PIL petition is dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment