'Unless Stayed In Any Proceedings, Eviction Orders Must Be Followed': Rajasthan HC In PIL To Remove Encroachments From School Playground

Essentially, the present public interest litigation was filed seeking issuance of directions to the authorities to remove encroachments from the disputed land, which, according to the petitioner, was a playground of the school.

As per petitioner, the playground of the school was illegally leased out to large number of the persons by the Gram Panchayat without any authority of law and when complaints were made, the competent authority initiated proceedings under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act ('the Act') and orders of eviction were passed and appeal against the same was also dismissed. However, the petitioner alleged, no step was taken by the state authorities in this regard.

The court opined that State authorities are duty bound to remove encroachment from the land in question as they all suffer orders of eviction passed by an authority constituted under the law.

A division bench of Justice Madan Gopal Vyas and Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava, while partly allowing the plea. ruled,

"Therefore, subject to any remedy that the aforesaid respondents may have taken against the orders of eviction including order passed in appeal, the State authorities are duty bound to remove them from the land in question as they all suffer orders of eviction passed by an authority constituted under the law. Unless the orders of eviction are set aside or stayed in any proceedings, eviction must follow"

The court found that the petitioner, without naming any person, has placed on record certain orders passed under Section 91 of the Act and also one order passed in appeal.

The court observed that the eviction orders have been issued against Mohan S/o Narayan, Mathura Lal S/o Shri Ratanlal, Mathuralal S/o Narayan, Dhanna S/o Onkar, Babru S/o Moti, Mathura lal S/o Shri Keshuram and Dhanna's appeal has also been dismissed. The court pointed out that they have not placed before us any order of any appellate authority or any other court of law though proceedings under Section 136 of the Act are said to be pending before the SDO. We do not find that SDO has also passed any order protecting possession of the respondents named above, added the court.

Further, the court dismissed the petition against Shyamlal, Ramchandra, Kishanlal, Shantilal, Nanuram and Motilal as there was no material before it to issue any direction against them.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that as far as the use of land recorded as playground of the school is concerned, the Sub-Divisional Officer has opened an inquiry and till filing of the reply, such inquiry is also pending with regard to the existing use of the land and other aspects of the matter.

The counsel appearing for the private respondents 9 to 11 would submit that the petitioner has filed this petition seeking direction against answering respondents on misleading facts. He submitted that as far as Mohan S/o Narayan, Mathura Lal S/o Shri Ratanlal, Mathuralal S/o Narayan, Dhanna S/o Onkar, Babru S/o Moti, Mathura lal S/o Shri Keshuram, are concerned, certain orders have been passed but their right to defend against those orders by taking appropriate remedy before appellate forum or proper courts in law is still open to them.

He further highlighted that application under Section 136 of the Act has been made before the Sub Divisional Officer by the private respondents and in compliance of the directions issued by this Court earlier in these proceedings, the application was though considered but illegally rejected on the technical ground that all affected persons have to be impleaded as party. He added that thereafter, a fresh application under Section 136 of the Act has been filed before the SDO, which is still pending

Adv. Bharat Devasi appeared for the petitioner while AAG Sunil Beniwal with Adv. Saransh Viz and Adv. Abhinav Jain appeared for the respondents.

Case Title: Bot Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 93