UMED SINGH Vs. S D O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition before this court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution on 13.10.98 and challenged the impugned order dated 10.9.97 (Annex.5) passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Jodhpur - respondent No. 1. Thus, this writ petition is filed after a period of more than one year and three months, therefore, only on the short ground of delay and latches, which remained unexplained, it was required to be dismissed.

(2.) ON merits also, the petition has no substance. The impugned order at Annex.5 is sought to be challenged by the petitioner, who does not belong to village Hariyada. He is a resident of village Hoon Gaon. The impugned order at Annex.5 is passed by S.D.O., Jodhpur, declaring land of Khasra No. 185 Rakba 118.17 bighas of village Hariyada as 'Gochar' land on the basis of the report submitted by Tehsildar, Bilara. in the impugned order at Annex.5, it has been clearly mentioned that objections were invited from the village people of Hariyada but no objection was filed, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested under Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules') and the notification F -7 (6) Revenue B -67 dated 24.7.67 issued under the same, the aforesaid land of village Hariyada has been declared as 'Gochar' land. In my opinion, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the said order because he is not a resident of village Hariyada. However, it was submitted by learned Counsel Shri, Jodha for the petitioner that he is having twenty bighas of land in that Khasra No. 185, therefore, he is entitled to challenge the impugned order at Annex.5. Even assuming for the sake of argument that a person having land in the village Hariyada is entitled to challenge the order at Annex.5 then also, the petitioner has no case because it clearly appears from the notice dated 26.8.1998 (Annex.6) that it was a Govt. land on which the petitioner committed trespass. From the said notice at Annex.6, it appears that he is regularly committing the trespass on the said land, which belongs to the Govt. The very fact that the petitioner filed suit for declaration of correction in the revenue record and permanent injunction in the court of Asstt. Collector, Bilara against the State Govt. through the Tehsildar, Bilara, shows that he is not having lawful title on the land. The suit was filed only on 11.7.1997. From Annex.7, the report of Tehsildar, Bilara, submitted to the S.D.O. Jodhpur, it is clear that the petitioner must have come to know about the report dated 16.5.1997 submitted by Tehsildar, Bilara for the aforesaid land, in pursuance of the order passed by the S.D.O. on 14.3.1997. The petitioner, therefore, filed the suit on 11.7.1997 (Annex.3). Now, after a delay of almost fifteen months from the date of issuance of the order at Annex.5, this petition is filed. The submission that the S.D.O. was not empowered to pass such order under Rule 6 of the Rules as there was already 'Gochar' land (pasture land) in village Hariyada, has no substance. It is true' that in Rule 6 of the Rules, the words used are 'no pasture lands have been earmarked' but that does not mean that if there is some pasture land, then the other land cannot be declared as 'Goachar' land. It is as per the requirement and the numbers of cattle in the village that the land has to be declared as 'Gochar' land. From the report of Tehsildar, Bilara, (Annex.7), it is clear that in all, 3288 cattle were there in village Hariyada. Considering the requirement of 'Gochar' land of village hariyada, if the impugned order at Annex.5 is passed, then this court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the S.D.O. in such matters in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.

(3.) FROM the above, it is clear that the petitioner has no right to remain on the Govt. land, therefore, he has also no right to challenge the impugned order at Annex.5 The order is in accordance with law, which cannot be interfered by this court in the petition which is filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.