DWARKA PRAKASH SWAMI Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have challenged the judgment dt. 2.9.2014 passed by learned single judge of this Court, in Writ Petition No. 8619/2014, whereby the learned judge has dismissed the writ petition. Brief facts of the case are that the forefathers of the appellants were granted a land under special grant by the then ruler of Jaipur State and they were recorded as khatedar. However, in 1994 the land came to be entered as gair khatedari in the name of Man Mandir Shri Gopalji Maharaj. The appellants are pujaries of the said temple, and have been residing in the abadi land of khasra Nos. 794 and 795 for a long time. They are in physical possession of the land in question. On 27.8.2005 the respondent No. 1, the State of Rajasthan, issued Notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellants filed their objections before the Land Acquisition Officer. However, it is alleged that the said objections were not considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. Instead, an award was passed on 5.6.2008, and the land in question was also acquired. Against the said award, a writ petition was filed before this Court, which was withdrawn later on. However, the Court granted liberty to the appellants to file representation before the respondents. On 1.5.2014 a representation was duly filed before the competent authority. But, allegedly the same was not considered properly. On 30.7.2014, the respondents rejected it. The present writ petition was filed against the rejection order dt. 30.7.2014. The writ petition too has been rejected. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

(2.) MR . Anil Kumar Garg, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised the following pleas before this Court: firstly, initially, till 1994, the land in question was entered in the appellants' name. However, in 1994 the said land was registered in the revenue record in the name of the temple Mandir Shri Gopalji. Secondly, by judgment dt. 24.4.2014 in a writ petition filed by the appellants, namely Writ Petition No. 5661/2009, this Court had directed the appellants to file a representation before the government. Consequently, the appellants did file a representation. However, the representation was rejected by the order dt. 30.7.2014. Thirdly, the appellants had filed the present Writ Petition challenging rejection of the representation. On 2.9.2014 since the learned members of the Bar were abstaining from work, the appellant -petitioner No. 1, Dwarka Prakash Swami, had appeared before the Court. According to the learned counsel, appellant -petitioner No. 1 could not explain the case to the Court. Therefore, the learned judge has dismissed the application without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Fourthly, since the appellants are in possession of the land in dispute, they should not be evicted from the land without following the procedure established by law. Lastly it is contended that the learned judge has failed to appreciate that the petitioners do have a locus standi to file the writ petition. Hence, the reason given by the learned judge is misplaced.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel, and perused the impugned judgment as well as other documents submitted along with the appeal.