Back
2011 Supreme(Raj) 437
[Citation : 2011(3) RLW 2327 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Anjana Kothari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Dr. Kothari, J.)
HON'BLE DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J.
Anjana Kothari
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
S.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 51 of 2011, decided on 06.05.2011
Tribhuvan Gupta, for Petitioner;
Anand Purohit, Sr. Advocate, AAG with Pradhuman Singh, for State;
R.S. Saluja, S.G. Ojha, for Respective Respondents
Headnote:Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, Secs. 90-B — 'Aggrieved person' within the meaning of Sec. 90-B(7) and locus standi of respondent 'Vikas Samiti' to file appeal against an order converting the use of agriculture land into commercial use — Held — Appeal u/S. 90-B (7) can be filed only by aggrieved person, the land owner himself — The appeal filed by stranger, the Vikas Samiti was incompetent and not maintainable — The order passed by Divisional Commissioner was wholly without jurisdiction — Quashed and set aside. (Paras 15, 17, 19)
Application allowed.
jktLFkku Hkw-jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1956] /kkjk 90-[k &/kkjk 90-[k ¼7½ ds vFkksZa esa ^^O;fFkr O;fDr** ,oa d`f"k Hkwfe ds mi;ksx dks O;kolkf;d mi;ksx esa :ikUrfjr djus ds vkns'k ds fo:) vihy nk;j djus dh izR;FkhZ fodkl lfefr dh Lohd`r fLFkfr & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & /kkjk 90-[k ¼7½ ds rgr vihy dsoy O;fFkr O;fDr ¼Hkw-Lokeh Lo;a½ }kjk gh nk;j dh tk ldrh gS & vtuch fodkl lfefr }kjk nk;j vihy v{ke gksus ds dkj.k iks"k.kh; ugha Fkh & laHkkxh; vk;qDr }kjk ikfjr vkns'k iw.kZ :i ls vf/kdkfjrk fofgu Fkk & vfHk[kf.Mr ,oa vikLr fd;kA ¼in la[;k 15] 17] 19½
vkosnu Lohdkj fd;kA
2. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of present misc. application after the writ petition filed by her, namely, SBCWP No. 3588/2004 (Anjana Kothari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) was decided by this Court on 24.1.2008 with the following directions:-
"4. It is not made stood by this Court as to what is the jurisdiction of the police authorities to have a say in the matter of this nature and to interfere with the civil rights of the citizens for raising construction over the plot of land allotted to them by Urban Improvement Trust or any other local authority. It is only for concerned Public Authority to take appropriate action, if any in accordance with law. If civil right of other third party is affected, they may approach to the Civil Court. But what role police authorities have to play in such matter involving purely civil rights of the parties. It appears to be clearly motivated design, at the instance of some hidden hand behind these communications that the police authorities have ventured to prohibit the petitioner from enjoying her property rights in accordance with law.
5. It is also not appreciated as to how the Superintendent of Police refused to grant police protection at the request of the petitioner even at her own cost by the communication dated 5.6.2006 referred to above. If a citizen is threatened with life and injury to her person and seeks police protection, it is the duty of the police officials to provide such police protection without cost. In the present case, the very fact that the petitioner sought police protection at her own cost and even that was refused reflects badly on the said police officials.
6. Instead of taking any other stern action against the police officials who had played such role in the present matter at this stage, this Court feels advised to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent No. 2 and 3 not to interfere with the construction activity of the petitioner in any manner and to ensure that the peace of the area is maintained by them. If after passing of this judgment any of the police official seeks to interfere with the said civil rights of the petitioner, this Court may be constrained to initiate contempt proceedings against such police officials.
7. If the petitioner seek police protection in the matter upon threats by any of the local people of the area, the respondent No. 5 Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur is directed to provide needful police protection to the petitioner in accordance with law, without any cost.
8. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Dr. Vineet Kothari), J."
3. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a mandamus direction against the SHO, Police Station-Basni and Superintendent of Police,Jodhpur City that they under the influence of some local people are trying to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner and raising construction of dispensary on the plot of land allotted to her by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur ad-measuring 513.88 square yards in Krishna Nagar, Jodhpur.
4. The case of the petitioner is that despite said judgment, since no police aid/protection was provided to her for protecting her rights to raise such construction, therefore, the present misc. application has been again filed for appropriate directions.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had to file another writ petition being SBCWP No. 1389/2009 (Anjana Kothari vs. Divisional Commissioner & Ors.) by which she has challenged the order dated 26.9.2007 passed by the Division Commissioner, against the order in appeal filed by the respondent-Krishna Nagar Vikas Samiti through its Secretary by which the learned Divisional Commissioner had set aside the order of the competent authority dated 12.1.2004 in Case No. 1592/2003 while exercising its powers under
