SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Raj) 3077

SANDEEP MEHTA, KULDEEP MATHUR
Kheem Singh Rathore – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. Moti Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG, Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Chayan Bothra, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Judgement Key Points

What is the authority of the District Collector to allot land for Aabadi development under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act when the land is classified as Gochar or Gair Mumkin Bhakar? What is the court's position on misclassification of land in relation to the Collector's power under Section 7 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act? What is the court's conclusion regarding whether the impugned order violates statutory requirements or public interest?

Key Points: - The land in question was originally classified as "Gair Mumkin Bhakar" and part reserved for mining; the Collector’s order to allot for Aabadi development upheld. (!) (!) (!) - The respondent argued misclassification in Jamabandi; the court found the misclassification did not render the Collector’s action void and that the order did not infringe Section 7. (!) (!) (!) - The court noted no contravention of mandatory legal requirements or public interest; ex-parte stay vacated and writ petition allowed to proceed for final disposal. (!) (!) - The petitioner’s reliance on Gochar status was rejected; master plan and mining considerations were weighed, with no absolute prohibition on Aabadi development. (!) (!) - The case involved a PIL challenging the District Collector, Barmer’s 29.10.2020 order; stay granted then vacated. (!) (!) (!)

What is the authority of the District Collector to allot land for Aabadi development under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act when the land is classified as Gochar or Gair Mumkin Bhakar?

What is the court's position on misclassification of land in relation to the Collector's power under Section 7 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act?

What is the court's conclusion regarding whether the impugned order violates statutory requirements or public interest?


JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J. - This writ petition in the nature of PIL has been preferred by the petitioner for assailing the order dated 29.10.2020 passed by the District Collector, Barmer whereby, the land admeasuring 49 Bighas 5 Biswas from Khasra No.3241/1650 Mauja Barmer has been set apart/allotted/transferred to the Municipal Council, Barmer for Aabadi development.

2. While entertaining the writ petition, this Court passed an ex- parte ad interim stay order dated 08.02.2021 staying the effect and opration of the order dated 29.10.2020.

The foundation of the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order is that the land in question is reserved as pasture land and thus, the District Collector, Barmer had no authority under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act so as to set apart the same for Aabadi development. It is further stated that Section 7 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act does empower the District Collector to set apart Gochar land for the purposes mentioned in the Section but, in such a situation, the District Collector has to set apart an equal area of land to compensate the deficiency caused in the Gochar area. The petitioner has referred to certified copies of the Jamabandis and on the st

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top