SHANKER SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners claim to be permanent residents of Village Ghadoi Charnan, Gram Panchayat Kalyanpura District Barmer. They have averred that the Gram Panchayat Kalyanpura, Panchayat Samiti Balotra (respondent No. 4) had illegally issued pattas in gochar land to Madaram S/o. Kishnaram in khasra No. 155/45 patta No. 2, Bagaram S/o. Durgaram in khasra No. 78/5 patta No. 21, Gokalram S/o. Durgaram in khasra No. 78/5 patta No. 22 and Ruparam S/o. Durgaram in khasras No. 78/5 and 155/45. Thereafter, by its resolution dt. 05.01.2013 converted the gochar land in dispute to abadi land. According to the petitioners, such grant of pattas is illegal and unauthorized. However, on the strength thereof, the aforementioned persons have trespassed on the gochar land, and have raised permanent and temporary constructions thereon in the month of July, 2012, whereupon the petitioners submitted an application before the respondent No. 2 Collector, Barmer on 21.09.2012 seeking remedial intervention of the said authority. They have stated that thereafter, they submitted several representations before the different Revenue Authorities, but to no avail. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Jagpal Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors., : (2011) 11 SCC 396 and also the resultant circular dt. 25.04.2011 of the Revenue Department of the State Government directing the Collectors to ensure against allotment of pasture land (charagah land) and other land like catchment area etc., the petitioners have mentioned that vide resolution dt. 05.01.2012, the Gram Panchayat involved did accept the surrender of the land made in exchange of the gochar land by the trespassers. That meanwhile, the respondent No. 3 Tehsildar, Pachpadra District Barmer had initiated proceedings under Sec. 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against Ruparam and that he had been declared trespasser in the connected proceedings registered as case No. 3/2012 with a direction to be removed from the land, has been mentioned. The petitioners have alleged that the Revenue Authorities, however, have remained as mute onlookers and as they have failed to discharge their public duty, they ought to be directed by an appropriate writ to restore the position of the land involved as it existed prior to the coming into force of the Act and to quash all resolutions of the Gran Panchayat concerned, pattas issued by it as well as the orders granting mutation in favour of the above named persons by accepting their offer for surrender of the land in exchange of the plots so allotted to them.

(2.) UPON hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on a consideration of the averments made in the writ petition and the documents annexed thereto, we are of the opinion that having regard to the intervening facts, the instant petition ought not to be entertained in the form of public interest litigation. Admittedly, the Gram Panchayat concerned had issued pattas in favour of the persons involved and has accepted the surrender of the land made by them in exchange of the plots referred to by the petitioners as gochar land and that their names have already been mutated in respect thereof (land referred to as gochar land by the petitioners). There is a mention of the proceeding under Sec. 91 of the Act against one of the persons i.e. Ruparam in which it is averred that he has been declared to be trespasser and a direction has been issued for his removal from the land in his occupation.