PIL) PETITION No. 10001 of 2012 · Rajasthan High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I Mr. Nawal Singh Sikarwar, for appellant. Heard on the question of admission. By way of filing the writ petition, petitioner has prayed for removal of encroachment from certain agricultural land. He has submitted that some portion of the land is reserved for the use of public. Prayer has also been made to direct the respondents not to allow the encroachment and cutting of the trees. Documents annexed with the petition indicate that Gram Panchayat has approached the Tehsildar for removal of encroachment. It is submitted by the petitioner that various persons have encroached upon the area, which are required to be removed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. In our opinion, the competent authority can direct removal of encroachment under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. The concerned Tehsildar can take action suo moto or upon application of the local authority for removal of encroachment under Section 91; as the matter is such which has to be looked into, in the light of factual matrix, at the first 2 instance by the concerned authorities and the applications have already been submitted before the appropriate authorities. It is assured by Mr. N.A. Naqvi, AAG that action to remove encroachment, if any, shall be taken in accordance with law. Let the concerned authority take appropriate action in accordance with law after hearing the affected persons. At this stage, we are not inclined to make further indulgence. Let steps be taken in accordance with law as assured by Mr. N.A. Naqvi, AAG appearing on behalf of State. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. (ARUN MISHRA),C.J. Mohit 34 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Mohit Tak, Jr. P.A.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 — s. 91; Rajasthan Land Revenue Act — s. 91.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.