AMRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners. The instant application presented to initiate a public interest litigation discloses that the petitioners are permanent residents of village Semari Tehsil Sarada District Udaipur. They have stated that in Samvat 2001 (equivalent to English calendar year 1944 -45), a plot of land measuring 209 bigha 3 biswa of Sabik Araji No.2750 of patwar circle of village Semari Tehsil Sarada was entered in the revenue record as bilanam. After the formation of the State of Rajasthan in the year 1962, the grazing area of village Semari was demarcated with land measuring 157 bigha 10 biswa. Out of this, several plots were allotted by the Government of Rajasthan/Sarpanch of the Panchayat Semari to various persons between Samvat 2016 to 2022 (1959 -60 to 1965 -66). The lands allotted were thereafter entered in the revenue records in the name of the allottees. The petitioners have mentioned that a plot measuring 3 bigha of Araji No.2750 was allotted to one late Bhura, which was mutated in his name vide mutation no.487 dated 14.6.1971 in terms of the order of the Sub Tehsildar Sarada. According to them, during the re -settlement, the land measuring 15 -20 bigha of Sabik Araji No.2750 was reserved/fixed as grazing area towards the northern side of Rebario Ki Dhani in village Semari and animals of the locality used to graze there. The existence of a pond catering to the drinking needs of the animals of the village has also been mentioned. The averments in the writ petition disclose purchase of the plots involved and dispute with regard to the possession thereof and also the nature of use of the same. That names of different persons have been entered in the revenue records in respect thereof are also decipherable from the said averments. According to the petitioners, though from time to time they have brought to the notice of the concerned authorities the factum of encroachments on the land in question by the persons in occupation, the respondents -authorities have failed to discharge their statutory duties and this being detrimental to the public interest, they having been left with no alternative have turned to this Court for redress.

(2.) UPON hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on a consideration of the materials on record, we are not inclined to entertain this petition as a public interest litigation. To start with, the reliefs claimed for in the writ petition as quoted hereinbelow are patently too general and sweeping in nature which due to efflux of time cannot in any view of the matter be granted:

(3.) THIS petition is thus closed. However, the petitioners are left at liberty, if so advised, to take recourse to any other remedy available to them in law for redressing their grievances.