RAM LAL DHANKA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.R.P.Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner. For the order proposed to be passed, it is considered inessential to issue formal notice to the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner claims himself to be a resident of Jaipur and belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. His pleaded version is that the land bearing Khasra Nos.392, 393 etc., measuring 10.02 hectares situated in revenue Village Udaipuria, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur was in the khatedari of Kuldeep Singh S/o Ram Singh, Ram Singh S/o Nathu Singh, Smt.Prem Lata W/o Laxmi Narain and Nathu Lal, Prabhat & Gyarsi Lal S/o Dhanna Ram, residents of the same village. Out of this land, an area measuring about 26 bighas belonging to Kuldeep Singh S/o Ram Singh and Ram Singh S/o Nathu Singh belonged to the Scheduled Caste community. The rest of the land belonged to others, who also were from the Scheduled Caste community. He has alleged that with a view to grab this land belonging to the members of the Scheduled Caste community, the respondent No.3 (ought to be respondent No.4) posing himself to be the attorney-holder of the "Scheduled Caste Category ", submitted an application for regularization thereof under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1956'), which was impermissible in view of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1955') and in case No.164/2006, the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) issued an order on 22.2.2006 raising a demand of Rs.85,43,749/- in connection therewith. According to the petitioner, this amount was not deposited. Subsequent thereto, as the petitioner has alleged, on the application filed by one Rajkumar Sharma, the JDA converted the land in Group Housing Scheme and raised a demand of Rs.2,65,17,149/- on 25.11.2009, which was also not deposited. In doing so, the State Government norms pertaining to the Group Housing Scheme, were also not complied with. It has been further alleged that the JDA, in connivance with the respondent No.4, has also permitted conversion of the land belonging to the members of the Scheduled Caste community under Section 90-B of the Act 1956 arbitrarily reducing the amount of demand from Rs.2,65,17,149/- to Rs.38,77,835/-.

(3.) ON traversing the pleaded averments and the documents appended to the writ petition and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to accede to the prayer made. Not only the pleaded facts are inadequate, imprecise and unintelligible, those, in our opinion, also project a very casual approach of the petitioner. The petition is lacking in material particulars and notwithstanding the fact that it seeks to espouse a public cause it represents, by no means, it can be entertained to initiate a public interest litigation. While there cannot be two opinions with regard to the purport of Section 42(b) of the Act 1955 and the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Aanjaney Organic Herbal Pvt.Ltd. (supra), the pleaded facts are grossly insufficient, incohesive and disorganized, besides being incomprehensible, to discern the relevance of the said legal provision and the judicial pronouncement, in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also evident from the petition that the petitioner has not approached any of the respondent-authorities pursuing this public cause for redress.