SANDHYA GADIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONTENTION of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner was proceeded against in Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 by Tehsildar. The drilling machine, equipments and GI pipes and other articles were seized by Tehsildar on 24.09.2006, the Tehsildar passed the order on 28.12.2006 and imposed fine on the petitioner. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Collector, Jhunjhunu, who remanded the matter to Tehsildar to decide it afresh, with a direction that seized articles would be subject to out come of the appeal if filed. The Tehsildar, Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, by order Dt. 21.09.2007 dropped the proceedings under Sec. 91 of the Act against the petitioner but sought guidance from the District Collector, Jhunjhunu, with regard to seized articles. It is submitted that despite the petitioner making application to the District Collector, Jhunjhunu, so far the seized articles have not been released.

(2.) RESPONDENTS have not disputed the facts with regard to proceedings being dropped. What they have alleged is that a bore -well the Panchayat Samiti, Buhana vide letter Dt. 23.10.2006 granted administrative sanction for bore well and thereafter the District Collector, Jhunjhunu sanctioned the bore well of 125 MM (5 Inch) for drinking water, while on spot 200 MM (8 Inch) bore well was found for agriculture purposes. In the circumstances, the Respondents have not given any specific reply with regard to return of seized articles. Having regard to limited nature of controversy, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to return petitioner's seized articles to the him within one month from the date a copy of this order is produced before respondent No. 2 Tehsildar Buhana, District Jhunjhunu.