Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
DINESH MEHTA, J.
Gram Panchayat, Kalyan Singh Ki Sidd, Panchayat Samiti Bap, District Jodhpur through its Sarpanch Keshu Ram Meghwal, S/o. Jagmal Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10542 Of 2023
Decided On : 21-08-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case background. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. description of land details and ecological considerations. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments presented by the petitioner. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. legal arguments regarding land use regulations. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. further arguments and specific legal provisions. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. response from the state and its legal rationale. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. counterarguments and clarifications from the respondent. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. court's rationale regarding environmental concerns. (Para 33 , 34) |
| 9. discussion on land classification. (Para 35 , 36) |
| 10. rejoinder arguments concerning representation. (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 11. final remarks on standing and locus standi. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 12. issues for consideration established. (Para 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 13. impact of the representations from the gram panchayat. (Para 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 14. legal responsibilities of the gram panchayat. (Para 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 15. state's obligations in land allocation. (Para 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 16. court's view on the need for balance between development and local needs. (Para 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 17. need for acknowledgment of gram panchayat's voice. (Para 58 , 59) |
| 18. concerns about future land needs expressed. (Para 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 19. assessment of land recommended for allotment. (Para 63 , 64) |
| 20. reflection on state's rights over land. (Para 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 21. constitutional considerations in resource allocation. (Para 68 , 69 , 70) |
| 22. analysis of land classification laws. (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79) |
| 23. catchment area distinctions clarified. (Para 80 , 81 , 82) |
| 24. classification of pasture lands and needs. (Para 83 , 84) |
| 25. legal deficiencies in the allotment questioned. (Para 85 , 86 , 87 , 88) |
| 26. final directions regarding land management. (Para 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96) |
| 27. conclusion of the judgment. (Para 97) |
JUDGMENT :
(Dinesh Mehta, J.) :
1. The Gram Panchayat Kalyan Singh Ki Sidd (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Gram Panchayat’) has approached this Court calling the order dated 06.04.2021 in question, whereby the State has accorded permission for allotment of 800 bighas land of Kharsra No.1 and 2328 bighas land of Khasra No.14 of the revenue village Kalyan Singh Ki Sidd, Tehsil Bap, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Village’) to the respondent No.4.
2. Before adverting to the grounds raised in the writ petition and rival contentions, it would be apt to be abreast with the facts, which would be relevant for the purpose of pronouncing upon the challenge laid by the petitioner.
3. The revenue village Kalyan Singh Ki Sidd had 7013.08 bighas land at the time of settlement, spreading in 6 different khasras being Khasra Nos.1, 12, 14, 15 28 and 77 out of which 30.17 bighas land of Khasra No.1 and 1309.02 bighas land of Khasra No.14 (in total 1339.19 bighas land) were recorded in the name of State Government, as has been indicated in the report dated 24.07.2024 filed with the additional affidavit dated 25.03.2024.
3.1. Apart from the above, 833.06 bighas land of Khasra No.1 and 4472 bighas land of Khasra No.14 were recorded as Gair Mumkin Magra (uncultivable hillock). It may be pertinent to mention that the term ‘Magra’, is a vernacular version of expression ‘Hillock’ and ‘Gair Mumkin’ means impossible or not possible.
3.2. It is relevant to note that out of the total land of the village, 36 bighas land has been earmarked as pasture land.
3.3. It is also pertinent to note that for the purpose of water conservation, the State Government has developed a kachha dam in the name of ‘Modakiya Nada’ under the Mahatma Gandhi NAREGA Scheme.
3.4. The respondent no.5 – Rajasthan Renewable Energy Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RREC’) sent a letter dated 28.09.2020 to the District Collector, Jodhpur for allotment of government land for development of 300 megawatt solar power project at village Kalyan Singh ki Sidd to
The court emphasized the need for local authorities' input in land allotment decisions to ensure compliance with community needs and statutory obligations.
before making the allotment the State Authorities were required to set apart the land for access to the lands of the khatedar tenants, their dhani and the public utilities and the entries
The allotment of land to the respondent companies was illegal and violative of the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and the Rules made thereunder.
The court upheld the validity of the land allotment for a project of national importance and found it to be in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955.
The petitioners must demonstrate the violation of land allotment provisions and raise objections in a timely manner to challenge land allotment decisions.
Compliance with Rule 95A of the Settlement Rules before using or disposing of grazing grounds, and the power of the Deputy Commissioner to recommend denotification of VGR land.
Section 14 of RSIR Act, 2016 provides for public notice of draft Master Development Plan and invitation of objections from public including suggestions.
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
