Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25073 (RAJ)

SAAD SON OF LATE ILLYAS v. DISTRICT REHABILITATION OFFICER AND ADDITIONAL LAND REFORMS COMMISSONER REHABILITATION

CW/11656/2025 · 2025-09-18

Mahendar Kumar Goyal

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11656/2025 Saad Son Of Late Illyas, R/o Village Kothol Pahadi, Tehsil Kaman, Deeg (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. District Rehabilitation Officer and Additional Land Reforms Commissioner Rehabilitation, Bharatpur 2. Tehsildar Cum Managing Officer, Kaman Bharatpur, Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mayank Kumar Choudhary For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 18/09/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction against the respondents for implementation of the order dated 28.07.1981. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 passed the aforesaid order in favour of the encroachers for regularization/allotment of the subject land in their favour. Counsel submits that inspite of passing of considerable time, till date, the aforesaid order has not been implemented, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Perusal of the record indicates that a recommendation was made by the respondent No. 2 in favour of certain persons who were encroachers on the subject land and a decision was taken for allotment of certain land in their favour subject to the payment of Rs. 400/- per bigha. It appears that the name of the father of the (2 of 2) [CW-11656/2025] petitioner was also mentioned in the aforesaid order and the aforesaid order was passed more than four decades back. The petitioner and his father kept silent for more than 44 years and all of sudden, the petitioner has woke up and approached this Court with the aforesaid prayer. No explanation about this inordinate delay of 44 years has been given by the petitioner for not raising his claim. 4. It is settled proposition of law that the allottee is required to remain vigilant and if he sleeps over his right, the Court will not come to his rescue. 5. Since, the writ petition suffers delay and laches of more than 44 years, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted on the count of delay. 6. On this count alone, the present petition stand rejected. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/35