1 D.B.Civil (PIL) Writ Petition No.10217/2013 Shanker Singh & ORS.V/s State of Rajasthan & ORS.11.11.2013 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Amitava Roy Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.K.Lohra Mr.Sajjan Singh for the petitioneRs.Heard learned counsel for the petitioneRs.The petitioners claim to be permanent residents of village Ghadoi Charnan, Gram Panchayat Kalyanpura District Barmer.
They have averred that the Gram Panchayat Kalyanpura, Panchayat Samiti Balotra (respondent no.4) had illegally issued pattas in gochar land to Madaram S/o Kishnaram in khaSr.no.155/45 patta no.2, Bagaram S/o Durgaram in khaSr.no.78/5 patta no.21, Gokalram S/o Durgaram in khaSr.no.78/5 patta no.22 and Ruparam S/o Durgaram in khasras no.78/5 and 155/45.
Thereafter, by its resolution dated 5.1.2013 converted the gochar land in dispute to abadi land.
According to the petitioneRs.such grant of pattas is illegal and unauthorized.
However, on the strength thereof, the aforementioned persons have trespassed on the gochar land, and have raised permanent and temporary constructions thereon in the month of July, 2012, whereupon the petitioners submitted an application before the respondent no.2 Collector, Barmer on 21.9.2012 seeking remedial intervention of the said authority.
They have stated that thereafter, they submitted several representations before the different revenue authorities, but to no avail.
Referring to the decision of the 2 Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Jagpal Singh & ORS.V/s State of Punjab & ORS.((2011) 11 SCC396 and also the resultant circular dated 25.4.2011 of the Revenue Department of the State Government directing the Collectors to ensure against allotment of pasture land (charagah land) and other land like catchment area etc., the petitioners have mentioned that vide resolution dated 5.1.2012, the Gram Panchayat involved did accept the surrender of the land made in exchange of the gochar land by the trespasseRs.That meanwhile, the respondent no.3 Tehsildar, Pachpadra District Barmer had initiated proceedings under section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”.) against Ruparam and that he had been declared trespasser in the connected proceedings registered as case no.3/2012 with a direction to be removed from the land, has been mentioned.
The petitioners have alleged that the revenue authorities, however, have remained as mute onlookers and as they have failed to discharge their public duty, they ought to be directed by an appropriate writ to restore the position of the land involved as it existed prior to the coming into force of the Act and to quash all resolutions of the Gran Panchayat concerned, pattas issued by it as well as the orders granting mutation in favour of the above named persons by accepting their offer for surrender of the land in exchange of the plots so allotted to them.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on a consideration of the averments made in the writ petition and the 3 documents annexed thereto, we are of the opinion that having regard to the intervening facts, the instant petition ought not to be entertained in the form of public interest litigation.
Admittedly, the Gram Panchayat concerned had issued pattas in favour of the persons involved and has accepted the surrender of the land made by them in exchange of the plots referred to by the petitioners as gochar land and that their names have already been mutated in respect thereof (land referred to as gochar land by the petitioners).There is a mention of the proceeding under section 91 of the Act against one of the persons i.e.Ruparam in which it is averred that he has been declared to be trespasser and a direction has been issued for his removal from the land in his occupation.
The pleaded averments and the documents placed on record as well as the spectrum of the reliefs prayed for, according to us, do not justify the entertainment of the instant petition as public interest litigation.
While the enunciation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagpal Singh (supra) does not admit of any debate and that the existence of the circular dated 25.4.2011 of the Revenue Department of the State of Rajasthan also cannot be doubted, we reiterate that the framework of the writ petition does not call for intervention of this Court by treating the present proceeding as public interest litigation.
Noticeably, the concerned revenue authority, as the petition discloses, has meanwhile initiated proceeding under section 91 of the Act against one of the persons, namely, Ruparam and therefore, the imputation of 4 indifference and inaction also is bellied thereby.
In the attendant facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are required to approach the appropriate forum capable of embarking upon a fact finding enquiry and issue consequential directions to address the issues involved, in accordance with law.
The petition is, therefore, not entertained and is dismissed accordingly.
(Amitava Roy)CJ Parmar