KHEEM SINGH RATHORE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition in the nature of PIL has been preferred by the petitioner for assailing the order dtd. 29/10/2020 passed by the District Collector, Barmer whereby, the land admeasuring 49 Bighas 5 Biswas from Khasra No.3241/1650 Mauja Barmer has been set apart/allotted/transferred to the Municipal Council, Barmer for Aabadi development.

(2.) While entertaining the writ petition, this Court passed an ex- parte ad interim stay order dtd. 8/2/2021 staying the effect and opration of the order dtd. 29/10/2020. The foundation of the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order is that the land in question is reserved as pasture land and thus, the District Collector, Barmer had no authority under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act so as to set apart the same for Aabadi development. It is further stated that Sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act does empower the District Collector to set apart Gochar land for the purposes mentioned in the Sec. but, in such a situation, the District Collector has to set apart an equal area of land to compensate the deficiency caused in the Gochar area. The petitioner has referred to certified copies of the Jamabandis and on the strength thereof, it is submitted that as there is a categoric entry in the revenue records that the land in question is hilly area [XXX XXX XXX] reserved for grazing purposes and on the strength theeof, it is alleged that the District Collector acted well beyond jurisdiction while setting apart the land in question for Aabadi expansion and that too without offsetting the loss caused to the Gochar land.

(3.) Reply on behalf of the State Government's revenue department has been filed wherein, the case set up by the petitioner regarding the land in question being of pasture category has been refuted. Copy of the Jamabandi for the Samvat 20122039 has been annexed with the reply as Annexure-R/1 wherein, the entire Khasra No.1650 admeasuring 260 Bighas is classified as 'Gair Mumkin Bhakar'. At para No.13 of the reply filed by respondent No.3 Municipal Council, Barmer, it has been asserted that the disputed Khasra No.3241 is a part of the original Khasra No.1650 which was entered as 'Gair Mumkin Bhakhar' (a hillock) in the revenue record at the time of settlement. Assertions made in para No.3 of the reply are reiterated herein below for the sake of ready reference: