Kiran Raj

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed three appeals challenging an order rejecting interim relief against the removal of alleged encroachments on Gram Panchayat land. The court recorded that the appellants failed to establish a valid claim of residential possession and noted that misrepresentations were made to the court. Observing that an attempt was made to mislead the court and obtain priority listing under false urgency, the court imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the appellants’ counsel, directing payment to the Litigants’ Welfare Fund within fifteen days.

The appeals were filed against the order dated March 6, 2024, passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Nagaur, in Civil Misc. Case Nos. 26/2024, 27/2024, and 25/2024, rejecting applications for injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellants sought to restrain the Gram Panchayat from removing structures allegedly used as residences.

The appellants argued that they had been in possession of the land for over forty years and had applied for regularization. They contended that the Gram Panchayat was selectively targeting them while allowing other encroachments to remain.

The Gram Panchayat, represented by its counsel, opposed the appeals, stating that:

• No applications for regularization had been submitted before the trial court’s order.

• The land in question was used exclusively for commercial purposes, as evidenced by a Tehsildar’s report dated April 18, 2023, and electricity bills reflecting non-domestic service usage.

• The appellants owned and resided on alternative lands in the same village, with constructed houses on those properties.

• The Rajasthan High Court had earlier dismissed writ petitions filed by the same appellants, and the present appeals were an attempt to delay the removal of encroachments.

The Gram Panchayat submitted that after a previous order in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9685/2023, it initiated an encroachment removal drive, but obstructions were created by the appellants. Following this, it approached the court again in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9338/2024, where an order dated January 21, 2025, directed the state administration to provide police assistance for the removal process. The Gram Panchayat argued that the present appeals were filed in May 2024 but pursued only after the adverse order of January 21, 2025.

The court examined the evidence and submissions and found that the arguments made on behalf of the appellants were incorrect and misleading. It recorded, "All the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants before this Court are totally incorrect, false, and misconceived on the face of it."

On the claim that applications for regularization had been filed, the court noted that the documents presented pertained to June 2024, whereas the trial court’s order was passed in March 2024. It stated, "Meaning thereby, there were no such applications available on record before the learned Trial Court and the finding of the learned Trial Court to that extent is correct."

The court further observed that the applications did not specify any details of the land in question, noting, "Except the name of the applicants, all the other columns are blank, that is to say, they are as vague as can be."

On the claim that the land was used for residential purposes, the court found that:

• Photographs placed on record showed only commercial activities being conducted on the land.

• Alternative residential premises owned by the appellants were clearly identified.

• Electricity bills submitted by one of the appellants fell under the non-domestic category, confirming that the land was not used for residential purposes.

The court also examined allegations that the Gram Panchayat was selectively targeting the appellants and found no merit in the claim. It recorded that the Public Land Protection Cell had conducted an independent inquiry, which concluded that notices had been issued to all encroachers and that the Gram Panchayat was required to remove all encroachments.

The court further observed, "Had the facts not been brought to the notice of this Court by the counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat, definitely the appellants would have had a leverage by getting away with concealment and non-disclosure of the material facts."

On the conduct of the appellants’ counsel, the court noted that:

• The appeals had been pending since May 2024, but urgency was cited only after the January 21, 2025, order directing police assistance.

• On January 28, 2025, an urgent request was made, claiming that the appellants' dwelling houses would be demolished, but evidence later showed that they resided elsewhere.

• On February 4, 2025, the counsel for the appellants falsely stated that regularization applications had been filed before the trial court.

Citing D.P. Chadha v. Triyugi Narain Mishra & Ors., (2001) 2 SCC 221, the court remarked, "Professional misconduct is grave when it consists of betraying the confidence of a client and is gravest when it is a deliberate attempt at misleading the court."

It further referred to Virender Singh & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2024), stating, "Our system works on faith. We trust the members of the Bar when we hear cases. But when we come across cases like this, our faith is shaken."

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeals and imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the appellants' counsel, Mr. C.S. Kotwani, for misleading the court and abusing the judicial process. The amount was directed to be deposited with the Litigants’ Welfare Fund within fifteen days.

The court further directed that any pending applications and stay petitions stood disposed of.

Case Title: Hussain & Ors. v. Gram Panchayat Roon & Ors.
Case Numbers: S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 1749/2024, 1751/2024, 1753/2024
Bench: Justice Rekha Borana

[Read/Download order]