CW/1510/2004 of DWARKADASS and ORS Vs STATE and ORS on 21 December 2004

Facts

S.B.Civil Writ Petition NO.1510/2004

Dwarkadass & Ors.

vs

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

DATE OF ORDER : - 21.12.2004

HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J.

Mr. Sudhir Sharma, for the petitioner.Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, Addl.GA, for the respondents.

<><><>

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It appears from the facts of the case that the petitioner earlierpreferred writ petition in which this court while disposing of the bunch ofthewritpetitionsobservedthatpetitioners’representations/applications are pending before the competentauthority respondent no.2 – SDO, Rawatbhata, Begu, District Chittorgarhand have not been disposed of finally. Therefore, the respondent no.1-State was directed to not to dispossess the petitioners until theirrepresentations are decided by the competent authority strictly inaccordance with law. According to learned counsel for the petitioner,despite the positive direction of this court not to dispossess thepetitioners, the respondent District Collector, Chittorgarh has passed the order on 16.2.2004 and declared the petitioners’ land as pastureland and land reserved for the pond. Learned counsel for thepetitioner also submits that respondent is giving days for hearing therepresentation of the petitioner and respondent has not decided therepresentation of the petitioners even in three years. In view of theabove, the order Annex. 4 dated 16.2.2004 deserves to be set aside.

Since this court already restrained the respondents fromdispossessing the petitioner from the land in dispute by order dated5.2.2001 in the bunch of writ petitions (SBCW Nos.5/2001 to 14/2001),therefore, the respondents cannot dispossess the petitioners till thepetitioners’ representation are decided by the competent authority.

In view of the above, the fate of the order dated 16.2.2004depends upon the decision on representation of the petitioner. In viewof the above, the respondent no.1-State is directed to decide therepresentations of the petitioners and till the representations isdecided, the order Annex.4 dated 16.2.2004 shall remain in abeyancebecause the fate of the order dated 16.4.2004 depends upon thedecision to be taken by the respondent no.1-State on the representationof the petitioner. In case, the representation is decided in favour of thepetitioner, the order dated 16.2.2004 shall stand quashed and set aside,but in case, the representations of the petitioners is decided against the petitioners then the order dated 16.2.2004 (Annex.4) may be giveneffect to.

Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is disposed of asobserved above.

(Prakash Tatia), J.

c.p.goyal/-