Shankari vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Alok Sharma, J.

Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the application No. 60583/2014 for early listing of the petition. Permission is granted.

The application for early listing is dismissed.

Another application No. 52515/2014 for early listing of the petition is allowed for the reasons stated therein.

The matter is taken up today itself.

A challenge in this writ petition has been made to the order dated 06.03.2014 whereby the Nayab Tehsildar, District Tonk in the exercise of his powers under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter ''the Act of 1956'') found the petitioner as having encroached on Sawai Chak Land (Government land) i.e. kharsa No. 430, village Kalyanpura, Tehsil Uniyara, District Jaipur and not entitled to regularization and consequently was liable to be dispossessed and visited upon with penalty in an amount of Rs. 18/-. A challenge has also been made to the notice dated 25.06.2014 with regard to the petitioner''s fresh encroachment over khasra No. 430 in respect of which the petitioner was earlier found to be an encroacher and visited with an order of removal and penalty under Section 91 of the Act of 1956. It has been submitted that even though the reply to the notice dated 06.03.2014 has been filed, yet the respondents are seeking to dispossess the petitioner from her residential house situated in khasra No. 430, village Kalyanpura, Tehsil Uniyara, District Jaipur and therefore the respondents may be restrained from doing so.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition.

From the admitted facts of the case, it is apparent that the petitioner has no khatedari right over khasra No. 430, village Kalyanpura, Tehsil Uniyara, District Jaipur. The petitioner is palpably an encroacher on the said khasra which is sawai chak land. The petitioner had been earlier found to be an encroacher and removed from the said land under the order dated 30.04.2014 and also visited with penalty. The order dated 30.04.2014 dispossessing the petitioner does not appear to have put to challenge. There is no plausible ground to interfere with the aforesaid order in the circumstances of the case on the ground that till the petitioner''s reply to the subsequent notice under Section 91 of the Act of 1956 is not addressed and order thereon passed, her encroachment should be protected. In the exercise of its extraordinary equitable jurisdiction, this Court cannot come to the aid of an encroacher without any iota of right or any sustainable legal ground being made out.

The writ petition is without force. Dismissed.