Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALDEV SINGH versus B.O.R.

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BALDEV SINGH v B.O.R. - CW Case No. 5513 of 1996 [2007] RD-RJ 4792 (26 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5513/1996

BALDEV SINGH Vs. THE BOARD OF REVENUE, AJMER & ORS.

DATE: 27.09.2007.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE

Mr. H.S. Khandelwal for

Mr. M.M. Ranjan for the petitioner.

Mr. B.S. Chhaba, Dy. GA for the State.

****

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's land bearing Khasra No. 1460 situated at village Keshorai Patan, District Bundi was the

Government land and the petitioner encroached over the

Government land and, therefore, a notice dated 16.10.95 under Section 22 of Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954

(for short 'the Act of 1954') was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.4, the Tehsildar,

Keshorai Patan, by which the petitioner was asked to remove encroachment from the Government land. Since the petitioner has not removed encroachment, crop of the pedi was seized and penalty was imposed upon the petitioner.

Again the petitioner encroached over the

Government land and he was asked to remove his possession but the same was not removed and, therefore, notice to this effect was issued and the Tehsildar,

Keshorai Patan vide its order impugned dated 18.10.95, awarded a penalty of Rs. 394/- and also awarded civil imprisonment for 30 days and for compliance of the order, the order was sent to the Police Station

Keshorai Patan.

Against the said impugned order dated 18.10.95, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the

Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota and the Revenue

Appellate Authority vide its order dated 16.02.96, while upholding the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 18.10.95, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

The order dated 18.10.95 passed by the

Tehsildar and the order dated 16.02.96 passed by the

Revenue Appellate Authority was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing second appeal before the

Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the Board of Revenue also not interfered with the concurrent findings given by the Tehsildar and the Revenue Appellate Authority and dismissed the second appeal filed by the petitioner vide its order impugned dated 15.03.96.

I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and have also gone through the orders impugned dated 18.10.95, 16.02.96 and 15.03.96 passed by the Tehsildar, Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue respectively.

I find no illegality or error apparent on the face of the record as concurrent findings are given by all the Courts below, which require no interference.

The petitioner is not able to make out any case which requires any interference by this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

The interim order dated 18.11.96 granted by this Court stands rejected. The stay application also stands dismissed.

(K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.