Gordhan Mittal vs Tehsil dar chirawa Advocate - rakesh arya — 41/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 00. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed otherwise on 15th May 2026.
Civil Misc. Connected (41) - CIVIL MISC (C)
CNR: RJJH230001472025
Filing Number
147/2025
Filing Date
24-11-2022
Registration No
41/2025
Registration Date
28-11-2022
Court
ACJM CHIRAWA CIV
Judge
1-ACJM
Decision Date
15th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed otherwise
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Gordhan Mittal
Adv. avdesh kumar
Respondent(s)
Tehsil dar chirawa Advocate - rakesh arya
Exucation Officer Nagar palika chirawsa
Prasidenct Nagar palika chirawa
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ACJM
Disposed
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
Orders
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 02-05-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings |
| 21-04-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings |
| 27-02-2026 | Orders |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court dismissed petitioner Gordhan Mittal's petition seeking relief against government officials for allegedly wrongfully issuing an encroachment notice under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act regarding disputed property (Plot 58). The court found that the property was classified as "gairmumkin johad" (barren/non-cultivable government land) in revenue records and that Mittal's possession constituted illegal encroachment, making the notice legally valid. The court held that Mittal had no legitimate claim and that procedural fairness concerns were adequately addressed, as even a High Court judgment (2004) confirmed no private ownership rights could exist over such government land. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court dismissed petitioner Gordhan Mittal's petition seeking relief against government officials for allegedly wrongfully issuing an encroachment notice under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act regarding disputed property (Plot 58). The court found that the property was classified as "gairmumkin johad" (barren/non-cultivable government land) in revenue records and that Mittal's possession constituted illegal encroachment, making the notice legally valid. The court held that Mittal had no legitimate claim and that procedural fairness concerns were adequately addressed, as even a High Court judgment (2004) confirmed no private ownership rights could exist over such government land. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts