MAHANT LEHAR GIRI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the appellant. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dt. 18.09.2013 passed in SBCWP No. 1791/2008 and the order dt. 22.10.2013 rendered in S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 136/2013. The writ petitioner is in appeal.

(2.) THE appellant/writ petitioner's pleaded case in short is that he had established a 'Gaushala' over the land measuring 85.07 bighas in Khasra No. 784 and 33.05 bighas in Khasra No. 785 situated in Village Vasan in District Sirohi. He has also constructed a temple thereon. On 22.03.2001, he submitted an application under Rule 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land to Gaushala) Rules, 1957 (for short hereinafter referred -to as "the Rules of 1957") before the District Collector, Sirohi for allotment of the aforesaid land to the 'Gaushala'. According to him, on his application, the jurisdictional Patwari inspected the site and affirmed that the 'Gaushala' was functional and that the land was fit therefor. He also confirmed the existence of the temple. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Vasan also issued a No Objection Certificate. He has, however, disclosed that prior to all these developments in the year 1996, a proceeding under Sec. 90A/91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956") was initiated against him asking him to vacate the land in question. He stated that as required, he deposited the fine for his possession over the said land and also realized the proceeds of the auction sale of his crops standing thereon. While the matter rested at that, in the third week of January, 2008, the Tehsildar, Reodar, came to the site and asked him to vacate the land on the ground that the same would be allotted to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Abu Road for establishment of sub yard. After having unsuccessfully pleaded with the respondents, he approached this Court seeking an appropriate writ to interfere with the letters dt. 10.01.2008 & 27.02.2008 pertaining to the allotment of the land in favour of respondent No. 6.

(3.) THE respondent No. 6 while reiterating the pleaded stand of the official respondents, added that the appellant/writ petitioner had been rightly removed from the land in question.