The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), seeking direction to the respondents to declare 90 bighas of land situated in Shekho Ka Tala, Nachana, Jaisalmer, as abadi land.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas on February 3 observed that it was not inclined to enter into such highly disputed questions of facts in public interest petition, particularly when the state authorities have pointed out with supporting material, including the map of the site, that there were other lands situated nearby the site, which were already declared as abadi area.
The petition, filed by Amar Deen Khan and five others, contended that the state authorities have taken the decision on the basis of reports and technical sanction was also granted for declaring the said land as abadi land. However, after granting such technical sanction, no further steps have been taken and thus, the petitioners have moved this public interest litigation.
Narendra Singh Rajpurohit, Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the documents and materials on record conclusively establish that the land in question was suitable for being declared as Abadi land, that there was no other Abadi land situated in the near vicinity and that the state authorities had also come to the said conclusions.
However, without any justifiable reasons, the state authorities abandoned the process of declaring the land as abadi land, he added.
On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent State opposed the petition and contended that the petitioners were encroachers. They have no right over the land in question. Even otherwise, there were abadi lands declared by the state government in the near vicinity, where the petitioners can seek allotment.
The Counsel for the states agreed that at one stage, the state government was in the process of declaring the land in question as abadi, however, it was realised that other lands situated nearby were already abadi lands, therefore, it was not feasible to declare the present land as abadi.
The Counsel for the private respondent strongly opposed the petition and contended that the respondent has been occupying the land for generations and have moved an application before the Commissioner for allotment of the land. The said proceedings were pending.
To frustrate the cause of the private respondent, the petitioners have filed the present public interest litigation, which was malicious, alleged the Counsel.