DEVKI RANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition no order of Court or Tribunal has been challenged and what has been prayed for is that the petitioner should not be dispossessed from 10 bighas of agricultural land, residential house, both situated in village Sikorri, Tehsil - Kumher, Distt. Bharatpur and the matters pending in the revenue Courts be transferred to any judicial/civil court. Originally, Shri Natthi Singh, the then Revenue Minister, Government of Rajasthan, was made a party-respondent to the writ petition, but since later on he ceased to be the Minister, an application has been filed that his name may be deleted from the array of the respondents. Before we proceed to dispose of this case at the admission stage, some facts relating to the events till today in respect of proceedings which took place in this writ petition may be stated.

(2.) Under order dated Feb. 14. 1991, in the presence of Mr. S.L. Yadav, Advocate. Mr. M.1. Khan Addl. Advocated General, Mr. R.D. Rastogi and Mr. Biri Singh Advocates, Honourable Chief Justice had constituted this Bench to dispose of all the four cases. The four cases were other wise to be heard by the Single Bench. Besides this, It appears from the order of the Chief Justice that against request was made by the learned counsel for the parties and the Honourable Chief Justice on their join request has referred all the four cases, the present writ petition, as well as bail applications and Miscellaneous Petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. for disposal to this Bench, Before making the aforesaid joint request before hon'ble Chief Justice in the Petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. (No. S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1436/1990 Devki Rani Vs. State of Rajasthan at page 18, para 29, the petitioner has prayed that

(3.) On March 6, 1991, under a detailed order the request of Mr. Yadav that the Bench of which one of us (M.B. Sharma J.) is a member should not hear his cases, was declined. His request that the petitioner has filed S.L.P. in the Supreme Court and time should be granted, was also declined. Ordinarily this Court never declines such a request, but it was in the facts and circumstances of this case in which it appears that an exparte stay order was obtained, application under Art. 226 (3) of the Constitution of India was pending. Mr. Yadav was avoiding arguing the case on one pretext or the other, the said request was declined.