Full Judgment
Rajendra Saxena, J.
1. Heard.
2. The petitioner, who is a resident of Shri Doongargarh Town, District Churu, has alleged that he has a right of grazing his cattle under Section 93 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1996(in short the Act, 1956) on the pasture land detailed in Jamabandi of Samvat Year 2043 (Annex. 3). It is alleged that due to the inaction of respondents No. 1 to 6, the respondents No. 7 to 12 and other elements have unauthorisedly trespassed on the pasture land in dispute, that the Revenue Authorities (respondents No. 1 to 6) did not take prompt action against such trespassers and did not dispossesses them with the result that the right of the residents of Doongargarh Town grazing their cattle in the said pasture land has been adversely affected. He has alleged that though, the District Collector, Churu (respondent No. 2) by his order dated 13.8.1986(Annex. 4) had issued detailed instructions to his subordinates to scrupulously follow the provisions of Section 91 of the Act, but no effective steps were taken by the S.D.O., Ratangarh, Tehsildar, Doongargarh, Land Revenue Inspector Kasha Shri Doongargarh and the Patwari Kasba Doongargarh namely respondents No. 3 to 6. He has further alleged that the respondents No. 1 to 6 are not protecting the disputed pasture land and are not taking effective steps to dispossess respondents No. 7 to 12 and other trespassers. The petitioner, has, therefore, prayed that respondents No. 1 to 6 be directed to implement the order dated 13.8.1986 (Annex. 4), dispossess respondents No. 7 to 12 from the said pasture lands and they be also restrained from cultivating or committing trespass or destroying the disputed pasture land by cutting trees, bushes, herbs etc. growing thereon.
3. The respondents No. 1 to 6 in their reply have submitted that in Samvat year 2016 Beed land (pasture land) comprising of 9184 bigha & 1 biswa was available for Doongargarh and that the said land has been used for grazing cattle of residents of Doongargarh Town as per the latest entries in the Jamabandi of Samvat year 2043 to 2046 Ex. R/1, They have emphatically denied that they are not performing their duties conscientiously. They have asserted that when ever any person commits trespass on the said pasture land, then proceedings under Section 91 of the Act are initiated and such trespassers are dispossessed by due process of law. They have categorically denied the allegation that respondents No. 3 to 6 are not performing their duties deligently, conscientiously and are not protecting the interests and rights accruing on the pasture land for grazing the cattle. They have pleaded that proceedings under Section 91 of the Act, 1956 were drawn against respondents No. 7 to 12 and the Tehsildar, Shri Doongargarh by his orders dated 7.12.88, 9.12.88, 22.12.88, 3.12.88, 26.10.88 & 22.11.88 Annexure R/2 to R/7 has declared them as trespassers, ordered for their eviction and also imposed fines on them. They have further alleged that the respondents No. 7 to 12 have already been dispossessed from the disputed pasture land vide memos Ex. R/8 to Ex. R/13 dated 17.3.1989 and that the Tehsildar by his letters dated 20.6.89 Annex. R/14 to R/19 restrained them from committing trespass on the disputed pasture land, and directed them not to cultivate the said land and to restrain the cattle of villagers from grazing thereon. The respondents No. 1 to 6 have, thus, submitted that since all the reliefs sought by the petitioner have now been accorded, this writ petition has become infructuous.
4. No reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 7 to 12 despite sufficient service.
5. Shri A.K. Rajavanshi has contended that every year in rainy season respondents and other persons unauthorisedly commit trespass on the land is dispute and cultivate thereon but the Revenue Authorities do not take effective action.
6. It will suffice to mention that a detailed procedure has been laid down under Section 91 of the Act for summary eviction of trespassers by the Tehsildar. It has also been provided therein that crops of such trespassers are liable to be forfeited to the State and a penalty which may extend to 50 times of annual rent may also be imposed on the trespasser for the first act of trespass. In case of subsequent act of trespass such trespassers are liable to commitment to civil imprisonment, which may extend to 3 months and also to pay the penalty. In the instant case, proceedings under Section 91 of the Act, 1956 were initiated against respondents No. 7 to 12, who were held to be trespassers and they have been dispossessed from the land in question vide memos Anx. R/8 to R/13. All the Revenue officials are expected to discharge their duties diligently, conscientiously and effectively. If respondents No. 7 to 12 or any other person illegally or unauthorisedly occupies the disputed pasture land and commits trespass immediate and effective action should be taken against such persons in accordance with law.
7. With these observations this writ petition stands disposed of. A copy of this order be also sent to the Collector, Churu for necessary action.