Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 9569
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Dinesh Mehta, J
NAGAJI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 16556 / 2024
Mr. Anil Bidan Halu, Mr. Yogesh Sharma, for Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG
The court ruled that petitioners cannot be dispossessed until the competent authority resolves pending proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, ensuring fair process.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 - Section 91 - Agricultural land allotment - Petitioners were allotted land under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Tank Bed Lands for Cultivation) Rules, 1961 and issued a notice under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 - Court restrained respondents from dispossessing petitioners until the competent authority decides the proceedings initiated under Section 91. (Paras 4, 5)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that no final order had been passed by the authority concerned regarding the notices issued to the petitioners, necessitating protection against dispossession. (Paras 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were allotted agricultural land in 1997 and faced dispossession without resolution of their pending proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.
Findings of Court:
The court ordered that the petitioners shall not be dispossessed until the competent authority decides the pending proceedings, ensuring a fair hearing.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners could be dispossessed without a final order on the notices issued under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that until the competent authority resolves the proceedings initiated under Section 91, the petitioners must not be dispossessed, reinforcing the principle of fair process in administrative actions.
Result: Writ petition disposed of in the same terms as the previous order.
Order
12/05/2025
1. Mr. Anil Bidan Halu, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mova & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20878/2024)
2. Mr. Yogesh Sharma, associate to Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, learned Additional Advocate General is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.
3. In the case of Mova (supra), the Court has passed the following order:-
“1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were allotted an agricultural land under the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Tank Bed Lands for Cultivation) Rules,1961 vide order dated 29.12.1997 (Annex.1). He further submits that the petitioners have been issued a notice under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 to which the petitioners have submitted a detailed reply. Learned counsel also submits that the respondents are bent upon dispossessing the petitioners for allotment of land to another set of persons without deciding the proceedings undertaken by them in the notice stated above. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the respondents may be restrained from dispossessing the petitioners de hors the rules.
3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case.
4. In the present case, notices under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 have been issued to which the petitioners have filed reply. Since no final order has been passed by the authority concerned on the notices issued to the petitioners, therefore, it is ordered that until the competent authority decides the proceedings initiated by them under Section91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from their land allotted to them in pursuance of the allotment order dated 29.12.1997.
5. The respondents are directed to decide the pending proceedings undertaken by them in pursuance of the notices issued to the petitioners by passing a speaking order, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
6. The present writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
7. The stay petition as well as other pending misc. applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. “
4. Following the order aforesaid, the present writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms.
5. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
