Kesaram Lakhara vs Additional District Collector, Sirohi And Ors

Petitioner by way of this writ petition challenges the order dated 25.02.2019 whereby, the petitioner's application has been rejected and the stay order passed dated 04.01.2019 has been set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had taken the concerned property on rent and by an interim order was directed to pay rent continuously which he was paying. The petitioner has asked for the exact measurement of the property rented out to the petitioner which was however not provided. It is his submission that if the interim order is vacated nothing would be left in his revision petition which is pending before the concerned Court.

Learned counsel further submits that provision of Rule of 163 of the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 have not been followed and survey has not been conducted in terms of the Rule of 163(4) of the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and find that the case of the Gram Panchayat was that a cabin was rented out to the petitioner which was of the measurement of 9x9 Sq. feet only while he has encroached upon the adjoining area and constructed a shop which is on the main bus stand on the abadi land of the Panchayat. The land which has been encroached by the petitioner was neither rented out to him nor any of the said land was allowed to be constructed upon. Photographs with record were produced before the Additional District Collector, Sirohi and on the basis of the document placed on record the Additional District Collector, Sirohi who after considering the facts and record found that the Panchayat has rented out a cabin to the petitioner for a temporary use in terms of Rule of 163 of the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 and the petitioner instead of has made pakka construction on the land encroached the land all around it. No document has been produced by him in support of his ownership or entitlement on the land even before the Additional District Collector, Sirohi and taking into consideration all the aspects called for record of the main revision petition itself and while rejecting the said application dated 04.01.1990 has rejected the application of the petitioner and also given his final verdict.

Nothing further is required to be done at the level of Additional District Collector, Sirohi now and this Court finds that the order passed by the Additional District Collector, Sirohi in view of the facts as noted above does not call for any interference Rule 163 of the Rules of 1996.

The arguments raised by the learned counsel relating to 163(4) of the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 is not applicable on the facts of the present case as the petitioner was only allotted a cabin on rent which was a temporary construction as per the Panchayat which was measured as 9x9 Sq.feet . If at all, the petitioner has any right it would be only in relation to continue on rented area of 9x9 sq. feet. All further encroachments made by the petitioner will have to be removed. Accordingly, no interference is call for.

The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

The stay petition also stands dismissed.