CW 1328/10 (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1328/2010 Govind Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date Of Order :: 11/05/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Sunit Awasthi, for petitioner. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dt.22.6.09 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer holding the petitioner, who was Up-Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Untada, Panchayat Samiti Shrinagar, District Ajmer, as encroacher on the government land and while holding the charge proved, directed the Tehsildar to remove the encroachment after initiating proceedings U/s 91(6) of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 against the petitioner. Charge-sheet was served upon him on 19.11.07 (Ann.1) and the allegation was that while holding the public office he along with other family members has encroached 10 bighas of land arising from khasra no.514 which was 'Sawai-Chak' land belonging to State Govt. The petitioner submitted reply to the notice and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing, the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer vide order dt.22.6.09 after perusal of the record observed that khasra no.514 is 'Sawai- Chak land measuring 35-40 bighas, out of which CW 1328/10 (2) 10 bighas of land being in possession of the petitioner & his other brothers, they have constructed dwelling house over 2 bighas of land and rest they have put their barberding bars. It was also observed that in Samwat 2041 khasra no.514 was shown to be “Siwai Chak” land but in Samwat 2047, 2058 it has been recorded that petitioner along with his brothers are holding possession and taking note of the report submitted by the inquiry officer finally the Divisional Commissioner held the petitioner to be an encroacher while holding the public office of Up-Sarpanch and after being held guilty of the charge levelled against him further order was passed directing the Tehsildar to initiate proceedings of dispossession U/s 91(6) of the Act, 1956. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record and find no manifest error being committed by the authority while passing the order impugned which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi),J. VS Shekhawat/- 1328cw10May11Fnl.doc