KALYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These intra-Court appeals directed against orders dated 27.11.19 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petitions preferred by the appellants assailing the legality of the allotment of the lands made in favour of M/s. Essel Saurya Urja Company of Rajasthan Limited ('ESUCRL') in revenue villages Ugras and Nagnechinagar of Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur and in favour of Adani Renewable Energy Park Rajasthan Limited ('AREPRL') in revenue village Nedan, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer, for establishment of Solar Park, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) To appreciate the controversy raised in these appeals, it would be appropriate to notice the brief facts of the each case: D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.51/2020 (Kalyan Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) This special appeal arises out of the order dated 27.11.19 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.16305/18. The writ petitioners claiming themselves to be khatedar tenants and cultivators for last 40-45 years of agriculture land comprising various khasras of village Nagnechinagar, assailed the legality of the order dated 23.3.18, issued by the District Collector, Jodhpur, allotting the lands measuring 70.08 bighas comprising khasra no.416, 1958.02 bighas comprising khasra no.439 and 454.04 bighas comprising khasra no.441 of revenue village Nagnechinagar, in favour of ESUCRL for establishing a Solar Park. The petitioners placed on record the jamabandi of their land annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-1.

(3.) All the three writ petitions preferred as aforesaid, have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge in the light of the decision in the matter of Chanesar Khan and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.: S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5707/18, decided on the same day. The said writ petition was related to the challenge to the allotment made in favour of company AREPRL in the Village Nedan. In Chanesar Khan's case, the learned Single Judge opined that the petition preferred involve host of disputed question of facts, which cannot be gone into by the Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction and thus, the petitioners were heard only qua the prayer clause (a) of the writ petition i.e. with respect to order impugned therein dated 11.1.18 issued by the District Collector, Jaisalmer allotting 6115 bighas 6 biswas land comprising various khasras of Village Nedan in favour of AREPRL. The contentions of the petitioners therein that the land has been allotted in violation of Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('Act of 1955') and Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Setting up of Power Plant based on Renewable Energy Sources) Rules, 2007 ('Rules of 2007') was negated by the learned Single Judge taking note of the submission of the learned Advocate General appearing for AREPRL that the possession of the land of public utility such as Pond, Talab, 1, Graveyard etc. has not been handed over to AREPRL and they will not insist for handing over possession or allotment of such land, possession whereof, has not been given. The Court further observed: