Skip to content


Ganesh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1467 of 1976
Judge
Reported in1984WLN(UC)46
AppellantGanesh
RespondentState of Rajasthan and ors.
Excerpt:
rajasthan panchayat & nyaya panchayat (general) rule 266 - settlement of land-land not abadi land and within 50 yards of road--held, it cannot be settled under rule 266 and cannot be regularised under rules.;the land in question which is settled under rule 266 of the rules was not an abadi land. if it is not an abadi land, it cannot be settled by the panchayat under rule 266 of the rules. more over, the reguiarisation proceeding alleged to have been taken by the respondent at the instance of the petitioner is of no avail, because the land which comes within 50 yards from the road cannot be regularised in any case.;rule discharged - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h):..........as relevant amendment was made long after the settlement was made in favour of the petitioner. the abadi rules were not in existence at that point of time. secondly it is argued by mr. shrimali that the land which was settled, was abadi land or in any case it was used as such for quite a long time.3. mr. parekh on behalf of the respondent however, contends that the land in question is first of all not an abadi land and thereafter u/r 266 of the rules it cannot be settled and secondly it is argued that this land is within 50 yards from the road and it cannot be regularised under the rules.4. it is not necessary for me to go into the first point at all in view of the fact, it is clear that the land in question which is settled under rule 266 of the rules was not an abadi land. if it is not.....
Judgment:

P.K. Banerjee, C.J.

1. This rule is directed against an order passed by the Additional Collector, Pali under Rule 272 of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat (General) Rules by which the settlement of the land under Rule 266 of the aforesaid Rules to the petitioner by the Panchayat was set aside.

2. Mr. Shrimali on behalf of the petitioner contended that Rule 272 of the Rules is not applicable in as much as relevant amendment was made long after the settlement was made in favour of the petitioner. The Abadi Rules were not in existence at that point of time. Secondly it is argued by Mr. Shrimali that the land which was settled, was abadi land or in any case it was used as such for quite a long time.

3. Mr. Parekh on behalf of the respondent however, contends that the land in question is first of all not an abadi land and thereafter u/r 266 of the Rules it cannot be settled and secondly it is argued that this land is within 50 yards from the road and it cannot be regularised under the Rules.

4. It is not necessary for me to go into the first point at all in view of the fact, it is clear that the land in question which is settled under Rule 266 of the Rules was not an abadi land. If it is not an abadi land, it cannot be settled by the Panchayat under Rule 266 of the Rules. Moreover, the regularisation proceeding alleged to have been taken by the respondent at the instance of the petitioner is of no avail, because the land which comes within 50 yards from the road cannot be regularised in any case.

5. On these two grounds the rule must stand discharged, which I hereby do. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //