Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Bharat Pariyani – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 374/2022
Decided On : 04-11-2022
Regularization - Land Possession - Land Revenue Act - Section 91, Section 85A - The court discussed the possession of the land, the orders passed by the Competent Authorities, and the provisions of the Land Revenue Act. The court emphasized the exhaustion of remedies by the petitioner and the requirement to reserve an equal amount of Pasture Land in the near vicinity if the land is regularized.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's father possessed land for agricultural purposes, and the petitioner continued the possession after his father's death. The petitioner sought regularization of the land, but the authorities declined. Despite multiple orders from the State Government, the land was not regularized, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been in possession of the land for a significant period and that the Competent Authorities had issued orders for regularization. The court also noted the requirement to reserve an equal amount of Pasture Land if the land is regularized.
Issues: The main issue was the non-compliance with the orders for regularization of the land possessed by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Competent Authorities' orders for regularization should be complied with, and if the land cannot be regularized, a detailed reasoned order must be provided. The requirement to reserve an equal amount of Pasture Land in the near vicinity was also emphasized.
Final Decision: The District Collector was directed to consider the State Government's orders and pass an order for regularization of the land or provide a detailed reasoned order for non-regularization within four weeks.
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the orders passed by the Competent Authorities dated 18.11.1996 (Annexure-6), 23.12.1997 (Annexure-7) and communication dated 20.12.2000 may be directed to be complied with and regularize the land of the petitioner in conformity with the order passed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father was a freedom fighter and a landless labour. The father of the petitioner was in possession of 2 Bighas 19 Biswas of land, which was developed and improved for agricultural purposes. The possession of the land was taken by the father of the petitioner in Samwat 2022 and in revenue record, it was recorded as Najayaj Kabja. The petitioner remained in continuous possession of the land after the death of his father and still holding the possession till date. In the year 1968, the proceedings under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act were undertaken but the proceedings were dropped and ultimately the possession of the petitioner and his father was not disturbed. The petitioner continued with the possession of the land and filed a petition for regularization of the same in the year 1994 before the Revenue Authorities. Vide order dated 17.11.1995, the District Collector, Rajsamand passed an order that the land in question is not fit for regularization. Against the order dated 17.11.1995, the petitioner preferred a representation to the State Government and the State Government vide order dated 17.01.1996 declined to regularize the land in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred a revision petition under Section 85A of the Land Revenue Act before the learned Revenue Minister challenging the order dated 17.01.1996 passed by the State Government. The learned Revenue Minister vide order dated 18.11.1996 allowed the revision petition and ordered the respondents to regularize the land in favour of the petitioner. The communication to that effect was also made vide order dated 06.01.1997. The District Collector vide order dated 04.03.1997 sought guidance from the State Government about the regularization of the land in question. The State Government vide communication dated 23.12.1997 reiterated the stand taken and directed for regularization of the land in favour of the petitioner. When nothing was done, the petitioner again submitted a representation on 30.08.1999 for compliance of the orders dated 18.11.1996 and 06.01.1997. When the order for regularization was not made, one more communication was made by the State Government on 04.09.1999 to the Collector and was reminded for complying with the order passed on 18.11.1996.
4. When the order for regularization was not made, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4587/1999 which was disposed of vide order dated 17.11.1999 directing the District Collector to decide the representation made by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. Thereafter, the State Government vide order dated 20.12.2000 once again passed an order directing the Collector to comply with the order dated 18.11.1996. The order dated 20.12.2000 was communicated to the Collector, Rajsamand vide order dated 12.09.2001. After passing of these orders, a protracted correspondence was made between the State Government and the Collector. Despite the number of communications and requisite orders having been passed from time to time for regularization has not been passed in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed for compliance of the order passed by the Competent Authorities of the State Government.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that in view of the chronology of facts mentioned above, the Collector, Rajsamand- respondent No.2 ought to have passed the order for regularization of the land, but till date, no order has been passed for regularization of the land possessed by the p
The main legal point established is that the Competent Authorities' orders for regularization must be complied with, and if the land cannot be regularized, a detailed reasoned order must be provided.....
The court emphasized the importance of following proper procedure and eligibility criteria in the regularization process under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959.
The court affirmed that unauthorized occupation regularization requires compliance with ownership limits, and remanded for inquiry into the applicant's land holdings.
Transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed).
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
