HANUMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the purpose of instant petition leading to initiate a Public Interest Litigation are that the petitioners are the residents of Village Lalana Bas Utrada and Lalana Bas Sheopura, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh. According to them, the land involved in Khasra No. 64 belonging to the Forest Department is a public way. They have stated that the private respondents having illegally encroached thereupon, have obstructed the same for which the petitioners as well as the other residents of the aforementioned villages lodged a joint complaint before the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Lalana Bas Utrada on 09.05.2013 for necessary remedial steps. However, as the said complaint did not evoke any effective results, they moved another complaint before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nohar, Distt. Hanumangarh on 14.05.2013 contending that the public way was available to the villagers for ingress to and egress from their fields and had been used by the public in general and that the encroachment thereon by the respondents, has resulted in serious inconvenience and hardship to all concerned. They also laid a complaint on 24.05.2013 before the Panchayat Samiti, Nohar to the same effect. That the complaint on 28.06.2013 had also been submitted before the Executive Engineer, PWD, Nohar, has been stated as well. According to the petitioners, they alongwith other residents of the area having protested against such continuous illegal encroachment on the land, the jurisdictional Nayab Tehsildar (Revenue) visited the spot and asked them (respondents) to vacate the public way but they refused to do so on the strength of the decree obtained from the Court. The petitioners have admitted that the respondents have houses on the plots, including Khasra No. 64 and they also hold 'pattas' in respect thereof issued by the Gram Panchayat Lalana Utrada. The petitioners have further mentioned that meanwhile, they have filed an appeal for cancellation the said 'pattas' before the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Nohar, District Hanumangarh alongwith an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. In this factual background, the petitioners have sought for intervention by this Court.

(2.) UPON hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on consideration of the pleaded averments noticed hereinabove as well as the documents appended with the writ petition, we are of the firm view that no intervention at this end for the present is called for. Not only as admitted by the petitioners, the respondents have been issued 'pattas' in respect of the land in their possession by the jurisdictional Gram Panchayat, they have also their houses thereon and as disclosed in the petition, they are equipped as well with the decree of a competent Court. The petitioners have not disclosed the particulars of the proceedings in which such decree has been obtained by the respondents. The decree has also not been appended to the instant writ petition. Further, that an appeal has also been preferred by them for cancellation of the 'pattas' issued in favour of the respondents, is a fact apparent on the face of the writ petition.