Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Raj. and ors.

Sukhdev Singh vs State of Raj. and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Dec 02, 1998

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/767206

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/767206
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: B.J. Shethna, J.
Decided On: Dec 02, 1998
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4072, 4073, 4074 and 4075/98
Subject: Property;Civil
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution of India - Article 226--Four petitioners moved their writs to safeguard their constructed houses--The plots were bought after paying to the Gram Panchayat--But the facts disclose a different story of fraud played with the connivance of the Sarpanch--The plots which belong to a school, were sold at a mea...

Key legal issue: Property;Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sukhdev Singh

Advocate Shri. Kharlia

Respondent

State of Raj. and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 1999(1)WLN21

Excerpt

constitution of india - article 226--four petitioners moved their writs to safeguard their constructed houses--the plots were bought after paying to the gram panchayat--but the facts disclose a different story of fraud played with the connivance of the sarpanch--the plots which belong to a school, were sold at a meagre price--the circumstances are suspicious--in such matters writ jurisdiction will not give relief. ;writs dismissed - - 2. the learned counsel shri kharlia appearing for the petitioners in all these petitions submitted that all these petitioners are absolutely poor and they have been sought to be thrown out from the plots on which they have made the construction also, which were allotted to them lawfully by the sarpanch of the gram panchayat on 27.7.1997 by charging rs. ), sri ganganagar is bad in law and liable to be set aside. ), sri ganganagar, it clearly appears that the school land had been. 4445/-.the petitioners, who have been said to be poor, have spent rs. 6. in view of the above discussion, all these writ petitions fail and are dismissed......land which was in possession of the petitioners since long, therefore, by way of private negotiation with the sarpanch of the gram panchayat-respondent no. 2, the plots of 100x80 were allotted to each petitioner. he submitted that against such order, an appeal was maintainable and not revision before the collector, therefore, the impugned common order dated 8.9.1998 (annex.9) passed by the addl. district collector (admn.), sri ganganagar is bad in law and liable to be set aside.3. from the impugned common order passed by the addl. district collector (admn.), sri ganganagar, it clearly appears that the school land had been...but in a most suspicious circumstances allotted to all these four persons by the sarpanch of the gram panchayat-respondent no. 2 for a meagre amount of rs. 4445/-. the petitioners, who have been said to be poor, have spent rs. 76,000/-, rs. 73,000/- rs. 70,000/- and rs. 67,000/- respectively, for their construction over such plots immediately after they got the plots in 1997 and on a technical ground that appeal was maintainable and not revision, the protection is sought from this court in all these writ petitions.4. there are advantages and also disadvantages of the panchayat raj. these cases are of glaring examples of the powers vested with the sarpanch, who without any hesitation sold away the plots which belong to 'school' for a meagre amount of rs. 4445/-. these are the petitioners, who first made the encroachment on the government land and after managing with the sarpanch of the gram panchayat and putting up the construction, claimed protection which cannot be granted atleast from this court. the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india is not meant for such type of dishonest persons, who managed with the sarpanch and get the plots by such tactics and paying a meagre amount of rs. 4445/-. it is to be stated that if the respondent no. 4 had not brought to the notice of this fraud, then they would have.....

Full Judgment

B.J. Shethna, J.

1. All these four petitions are disposed of by this common order as the common impugned order dated 8.9.1998 (Annex.9) passed by the Addl. District Collector (Admn.), Sri Ganganagar, is challenged in all these petitions.

2. The learned Counsel Shri Kharlia appearing for the petitioners in all these petitions submitted that all these petitioners are absolutely poor and they have been sought to be thrown out from the plots on which they have made the construction also, which were allotted to them lawfully by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat on 27.7.1997 by charging Rs. 4445/-from each of the petitioners. Shri Kharlia also submitted that it was the abadi land which was in possession of the petitioners since long, therefore, by way of private negotiation with the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat-respondent No. 2, the plots of 100x80 were allotted to each petitioner. He submitted that against such order, an appeal was maintainable and not revision before the Collector, therefore, the impugned common order dated 8.9.1998 (Annex.9) passed by the Addl. District Collector (Admn.), Sri Ganganagar is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

3. From the impugned common order passed by the Addl. District Collector (Admn.), Sri Ganganagar, it clearly appears that the school land had been...but in a most suspicious circumstances allotted to all these four persons by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat-respondent No. 2 for a meagre amount of Rs. 4445/-. The petitioners, who have been said to be poor, have spent Rs. 76,000/-, Rs. 73,000/- Rs. 70,000/- and Rs. 67,000/- respectively, for their construction over such plots immediately after they got the plots in 1997 and on a technical ground that appeal was maintainable and not revision, the protection is sought from this Court in all these writ petitions.

4. There are advantages and also disadvantages of the Panchayat Raj. These cases are of glaring examples of the powers vested with the Sarpanch, who without any hesitation sold away the plots which belong to 'school' for a meagre amount of Rs. 4445/-. These are the petitioners, who first made the encroachment on the Government land and after managing with the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and putting up the construction, claimed protection which cannot be granted atleast from this Court. The extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant for such type of dishonest persons, who managed with the Sarpanch and get the plots by such tactics and paying a meagre amount of Rs. 4445/-. It is to be stated that if the respondent No. 4 had not brought to the notice of this fraud, then they would have never been dispossessed from the land and the Addl. District collector (Admn.), Sri Ganganagar would never have passed such order on 8.9.1998.

5. In my opinion, the Addl. District Collector (Admn.), Sri Ganganagr has not committed any error while passing the impugned common order dated 8.9.1998 (Annex.9), which calls for interference by the hands of this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. In view of the above discussion, all these writ petitions fail and are dismissed.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1998 Same Parties Sukhdev Singh vs State of Raj. and ors. Same Subject Property;Civil Same Judge B.J. Shethna, J.

Property;Civil