Back
2021 Supreme(Raj) 1634
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sangeet Lodha, Rameshwar Vyas, JJ.
Kalyan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Special Appeal Writ No. 51 of 2020, 52 of 2020, 223 of 2020
Decided On : 29-06-2021
Subject
Land Law - Land Allotment
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.147, S.148, S.149, S.307, S.323, S.341, S.395, S.427
RAJASTHAN LAND REVENUE ACT: S.100, S.145, S.148, S.90
RAJASTHAN LAND REVENUE ALLOTMENT OF LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES RULES: R.2(j)(j)(j), R.6(4), R.7, R.3
Rajasthan Land Revenue Allotment of Land for Setting up of Power Plant based on Renewable Energy Sources Rules: R.5
RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT: S.16, S.16(xiv)
Headnote
Moti Singh Rajpurohit, Advocate, Likhmaram Upadhyay, Advocate, Sukhdev Sharma, Advocate, Khushboo Chouhan, Advocate, Rekha Borana, Advocate, Saransh Vij, Advocate, Vaishali Parihar, Advocate, R.N. Mathur, Advocate, Rajeev Lochan, Advocate, Shobhit Jhajharia, Advocate, D.S. Sodha, Advocate, Kuldeep Mathur, Advocate, Shreyansh Mardia, Advocate, Bhavit Sharma, Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the appeal cases (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the writ petitions filed (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. responses from the state and esucrl (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. appellants' arguments regarding land allotment (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. state's arguments in defense of allocation (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. further defense by areprl on allotment validity (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. critical analysis on procedural adherence (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. legal principles regarding public utility lands (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 9. observations on appellants' plea validity (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 10. court's authority on jurisdictional issues (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 11. allegations of violation of rights reviewed (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 12. conclusions drawn on appellant claims (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 13. land access and public utility preservation (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 14. critical examination of the land row (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 15. land allotment rules and public interest (Para 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 16. respresentation of natural resource safeguarding (Para 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 17. final observations on the legal questions (Para 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 18. conclusion on the appeals and orders (Para 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 19. final order regarding land allotment (Para 56) |
JUDGMENT
Sangeet Lodha, J. - These intra-Court appeals directed against orders dated 27.11.19 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petitions preferred by the appellants assailing the legality of the allotment of the lands made in favour of M/s. Essel Saurya Urja Company of Rajasthan Limited ("ESUCRL") in revenue villages Ugras and Nagnechinagar of Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur and in favour of Adani Renewable Energy Park Rajasthan Limited ("AREPRL") in revenue village Nedan, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer, for establishment of Solar Park, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. To appreciate the controversy raised in these appeals, it would be appropriate to notice the brief facts of the each case:
D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.51/2020
(Kalyan Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)
This special appeal arises out of the order dated 27.11.19 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.16305/18. The writ petitioners claiming themselves to be khatedar tenants and cultivators for last 40-45 years of agriculture land comprising various khasras of village Nagnechinagar, assailed the legality of the order dated 23.3.18, issued by the District Collector, Jodhpur, allotting the lands measuring 70.08 bighas comprising khasra no.416, 1958.02 bighas comprising khasra no.439 and 454.04 bighas comprising khasra no.441 of revenue village Nagnechinagar, in favour of ESUCRL for establishing a Solar Park. The petitioners placed on record the jamabandi of their land annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-1.
Precisely, the case set out by the writ petitioners in the writ petition was that they are in cultivatory possession of the disputed land and are residing there after constructing dhani for last 40-45 years. The land in question has been allotted to the respondents ignoring their rights and without issuing any notice to them. The petitioner claimed to be khatedar tenant of the land and averred that prior to allotment of land in question in favour of ESUCRL, no land has been allotted in their favour. The petitioners claimed that despite request being made by them, their possession has not been regularised by the revenue authorities. Further, according to the writ petitioners, the land allotted to the respondent Company includes the lands of charagah, water tank (talab), hills, oran, river, school, temple and residential etc., the allotment whereof is prohibited under the law. The writ petitioners while assailing the legality of the allotment made in favour of ESUCRL sought direction to the respondents not to dispossess them from the land in their possession.
A reply to the writ petition was filed by the State before the learned Single Judge taking the stand that the land allo
