Introduction:

The Rajasthan High Court has taken serious note of an alleged practice involving repeated encroachment of government land and the subsequent handing over of crops grown on such land to the very persons accused of occupying it unlawfully. While hearing an encroachment-related matter, a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Chandra Prakash Sharma expressed shock over the circumstances brought to its notice concerning government land in Village Jhanpda, District Dausa.

The matter arose in Kunjilal Meena v. State of Rajasthan and other connected matters, in which allegations were raised regarding encroachment upon government land and the manner in which the concerned revenue authorities had dealt with persons allegedly found to be in unauthorised possession of such land. During the hearing, the Court was informed that the issue was not confined merely to an isolated instance of illegal occupation. According to the petitioner, a recurring pattern had developed whereby encroachers were removed from government land, only for the same persons to allegedly return and cultivate the land again.

What particularly disturbed the Court was the material placed before it suggesting that persons alleged to have encroached upon government land were not merely permitted to cultivate the property but were also allowed to receive the benefit of the crops grown thereon. A chart was handed over to the Court containing the names of the alleged encroachers and indicating that the crops had been handed over to them for a nominal or “throwaway” price of Rs. 500.

The circumstances, as presented before the Court, raised serious questions about the manner in which public land was being administered and protected by the authorities responsible for its management. Government land is held and administered for public purposes, and officials entrusted with its protection are expected to act against unauthorised occupation in accordance with law. The allegation that persons repeatedly found encroaching upon such land were subsequently allowed to cultivate it and derive benefits from the crops generated a deeper concern regarding the effectiveness of the enforcement mechanism and the possible failure of revenue authorities to safeguard public property.

The Division Bench described the situation as “shockingly” revealing that alleged encroachers were being permitted to cultivate government land and that the crops were thereafter handed over to them at what appeared to be an extremely nominal price. The Court’s concern was not limited to the alleged encroachment itself. It also extended to the conduct of the officials responsible for administering the land and the process through which persons accused of unlawful occupation were permitted to obtain the benefits of cultivation.

In this background, the Court directed the Sarpanch or Administrator and the Inspector Land Record Tehsildar of Village Jhanpda, District Dausa, to file affidavits explaining the situation. The affidavits were expected to place the relevant facts before the Court and clarify how the alleged encroachers came to cultivate government land and under what authority or procedure the crop was ultimately handed over to them at the stated price.

The Court also sought the assistance of counsel appearing for the State regarding the action proposed to be taken against the concerned revenue officials. This direction reflected the Court’s concern that, if the allegations were established, the matter could involve more than a routine dispute over possession of land. It could raise questions about official accountability, the protection of public property and whether those entrusted with enforcing the law had failed to discharge their duties.

The proceedings thus bring into focus an important principle of public administration: government land cannot be treated as a resource capable of being repeatedly occupied and enjoyed by private persons merely because enforcement action is ineffective or inconsistent. The State has a corresponding obligation to ensure that public property is protected from unauthorised occupation and that official actions relating to such property are transparent, lawful and consistent with the larger public interest.

The allegations concerning repeated encroachment also gave the case an added dimension. According to the petitioner, whenever the alleged encroachers were removed, the same set of persons were subsequently allowed to return to the land and cultivate it. If established, such a pattern would undermine the very purpose of eviction or removal proceedings. An order removing an encroacher from public land cannot achieve its intended objective if the same person is repeatedly permitted to resume occupation or enjoy the benefits of the property without lawful authority.

The case is therefore significant not only because the Court expressed shock over the alleged sale of crops to encroachers for Rs. 500, but because it highlights the broader issue of institutional accountability in matters involving public land. The Court was confronted with a situation in which the alleged beneficiaries of an unlawful occupation appeared, according to the petitioner’s case and the material placed before it, to have continued receiving economic benefits from the land despite being identified as encroachers.

The matter is scheduled to be heard next on September 8, 2026. Until then, the affidavits sought from the concerned local and revenue officials, along with the State’s response regarding possible action against the officials involved, are likely to play an important role in assisting the Court in determining the further course of proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner, Kunjilal Meena, raised serious concerns regarding the continued and repeated encroachment of government land in Village Jhanpda, District Dausa. The petitioner’s principal grievance was that the process of removing encroachers had allegedly become ineffective because the same individuals were repeatedly permitted to return to the land and cultivate it after their removal.

According to the petitioner, the alleged encroachment was not being dealt with as a one-time violation requiring firm corrective action. Instead, the petitioner submitted that a recurring practice had emerged in which encroachers were removed from the government land, but the same persons were subsequently allowed to cultivate the property once again. This, it was argued, effectively defeated the purpose of any action taken to clear the land of unlawful occupation.

The petitioner also placed before the Court material intended to demonstrate the manner in which the alleged encroachers had continued to benefit from the land. A chart containing the names of the concerned persons was handed over to the Division Bench. According to the submission recorded during the hearing, these persons had been handed over the crops grown on the government land at a throwaway price of Rs. 500.

The petitioner’s argument, in substance, was that such an arrangement was fundamentally inconsistent with the obligation of public authorities to protect government land and public resources. If a person is treated as an encroacher for the purpose of removal proceedings, the petitioner questioned how that same person could subsequently be permitted to cultivate the land or receive the economic benefit of crops grown thereon under an arrangement allegedly involving only a nominal payment.

The petitioner further highlighted the recurring nature of the alleged conduct. The concern was not simply that encroachment had taken place, but that official action against it appeared incapable of bringing the matter to a lawful conclusion. Repeated eviction followed by repeated re-entry or cultivation by the same persons, according to the petitioner, suggested that the existing enforcement process was either ineffective or not being implemented with the seriousness required for the protection of public land.

Through these submissions, the petitioner effectively called for accountability from the authorities responsible for the administration and protection of the land. The petitioner sought the intervention of the High Court to ensure that government land was not repeatedly made available for private benefit without legal authority and that the concerned officials were required to explain their role in the alleged arrangement.

The material placed before the Court also raised a question concerning the procedure followed in relation to the crops. The petitioner’s case suggested that the crops were handed over to the alleged encroachers at a nominal amount of Rs. 500. The legality and propriety of such a process naturally became relevant because crops grown on government land may represent a valuable economic benefit, and any decision to dispose of them must be supported by a lawful procedure.

On the side of the State and its officials, the matter had not reached a final stage where a complete defence or explanation had been adjudicated by the Court. The order, as reflected in the case summary, records that the Court sought assistance from the State’s counsel regarding the action proposed to be taken against the concerned revenue officials. This indicates that the Court considered a fuller response from the State necessary before drawing any final conclusions regarding the role or responsibility of the officials.

The State was therefore required to assist the Court regarding the factual circumstances and the administrative response to the allegations. The Court’s directions also required affidavits from the Sarpanch or Administrator and the Inspector Land Record Tehsildar of Village Jhanpda. These affidavits would provide the concerned officials with an opportunity to place their explanation before the Court and clarify the circumstances in which cultivation was permitted and the crops were allegedly handed over to the concerned persons.

From the perspective of the State administration, the proceedings required an examination of several factual questions. These included the status of the land, the identity of the persons occupying or cultivating it, the action taken to remove any unauthorised occupants, the circumstances in which cultivation was allowed, and the procedure through which the crops were dealt with.

The State would also have to address the petitioner’s allegation that the same encroachers repeatedly returned to cultivate the land after being removed. Such an allegation, if correct, could point to deficiencies in the implementation of eviction proceedings or a failure to maintain effective control over government property after encroachment action was taken.

The Court’s direction to the State counsel regarding proposed action against revenue officials was equally significant. It did not amount to a final finding that any particular official had committed misconduct. Rather, it reflected the Court’s view that the allegations and material before it were sufficiently serious to require the State to examine whether the conduct of the officials concerned warranted departmental or other action.

The case therefore involved two distinct but connected issues. The first concerned the alleged encroachment and continued cultivation of government land by private persons. The second concerned the conduct and accountability of the public officials responsible for managing the land and enforcing the law against encroachment.

The petitioner’s submissions focused on the apparent contradiction in the official response: persons could not simultaneously be treated as encroachers and then be permitted to derive continuing benefits from the same public land without a legally valid basis. The State, on the other hand, was called upon to provide the factual and legal explanation for the actions taken and to clarify what further steps, if any, would be initiated against those responsible.

The Court’s decision to seek affidavits before proceeding further reflects the importance of procedural fairness. Serious allegations concerning public officials cannot ordinarily be determined solely on the basis of submissions made from the Bar. The officials concerned were therefore required to place their version on oath. This would enable the Court to examine the competing factual positions with greater clarity and determine whether further judicial or administrative directions were required.

Court’s Judgment:

The Rajasthan High Court did not finally adjudicate the entire dispute at this stage. However, the order passed by the Division Bench demonstrates the Court’s serious concern over the material placed before it and its determination to seek a detailed explanation regarding the alleged misuse or improper management of government land.

The Court was particularly disturbed by the allegation that persons identified as encroachers were permitted to cultivate government land and were subsequently handed the crops at a throwaway price of Rs. 500. The Court described the situation as “shockingly” revealing such a practice. This observation reflected the apparent inconsistency between the obligation to remove unauthorised occupants from public land and the alleged subsequent conduct of allowing the same persons to benefit economically from that land.

At the heart of the Court’s concern was the protection of public property. Government land is not the private property of revenue officials or local administrators. Public authorities hold and manage such land in accordance with law and for the benefit of the public. Consequently, where an allegation is made that unauthorised occupants have repeatedly enjoyed the use and fruits of government land, the authorities responsible for protecting that property are required to provide a clear and lawful explanation.

The Court also took into account the chart handed over during the hearing. The chart allegedly contained the names of persons identified as encroachers who had received the crops for the nominal amount of Rs. 500. This material appears to have strengthened the Court’s concern and made it necessary to obtain a formal explanation from the concerned officials.

Accordingly, the Division Bench directed the Sarpanch or Administrator and the Inspector Land Record Tehsildar of Village Jhanpda, District Dausa, to file affidavits. The purpose of requiring affidavits is particularly important in judicial proceedings involving disputed administrative conduct. An affidavit is a statement made on oath, and it requires the concerned person to place before the Court a formal and accountable explanation of the relevant facts.

Through this direction, the Court effectively sought answers to the questions raised by the petitioner and the material placed before it. The concerned officials would be required to explain the circumstances surrounding the cultivation of the government land, the identity and status of the persons permitted to cultivate it, and the manner in which the crops were dealt with.

The Court also directed counsel for the State to assist it on the next date of hearing regarding the action proposed to be taken against the concerned revenue officials. This direction is a significant assertion of the principle of official accountability. Public officials exercising powers relating to land records, revenue administration and protection of government property are required to act within the framework of law. Where their conduct gives rise to serious questions regarding the protection or management of public resources, the State cannot remain passive.

The High Court’s approach reflects the broader public law principle that State authorities have a duty to safeguard public property from unauthorised occupation. Although the present order did not finally pronounce upon the culpability of any individual official or encroacher, it recognised that allegations of repeated encroachment and repeated private enjoyment of government land cannot be ignored where the material placed before the Court raises serious concerns.

An important aspect of the Court’s intervention is that repeated eviction alone cannot be treated as a complete solution to encroachment if the same persons are able to resume cultivation immediately thereafter. Effective enforcement requires more than issuing removal orders. It requires the authorities to secure possession, maintain records, prevent re-entry and take lawful steps to ensure that public land is not repeatedly subjected to the same cycle of encroachment.

The petitioner’s allegation that the same set of persons were repeatedly removed and subsequently allowed to cultivate the land was therefore of considerable relevance. If such a practice is found to exist, it could suggest that the administrative response to encroachment is merely formal rather than effective. It could also indicate that those responsible for protecting the land have failed to take adequate measures to prevent repeated unlawful occupation.

The Court’s concern regarding the crops adds another important legal dimension. The produce generated from government land cannot ordinarily be disposed of in an arbitrary manner. Any arrangement for the cultivation of public land or disposal of crops must have a lawful basis and follow the applicable administrative and financial procedures. If crops of significant value are handed over to private persons for a purely nominal amount without proper authority or transparency, questions may arise regarding loss to the public exchequer and the fairness of the process.

The expression “throwaway price” used in the proceedings indicates the Court’s preliminary concern that the amount of Rs. 500 may not reflect the actual value of the crop or the economic benefit derived from the land. The Court therefore considered it necessary to seek an explanation rather than accept the arrangement at face value.

At the same time, the Court followed a measured approach by seeking affidavits and the assistance of the State before taking the matter further. The order does not establish guilt or misconduct merely on the basis of the allegations made by the petitioner. Instead, it initiates a process of accountability by requiring the concerned authorities and officials to explain themselves before the Court.

This distinction is important. Judicial scrutiny of public administration must be rigorous, particularly when public property is involved, but it must also remain procedurally fair. The officials whose actions have come under question are entitled to place their explanation before the Court. The affidavits will enable the Court to determine whether the allegations are supported by the official record and whether any action, judicial or departmental, is required.

No specific judicial precedent was referred to in the case summary as forming the basis of the present directions. The Court’s order, however, is firmly connected with established principles governing the protection of public property, accountability of public authorities and the rule of law. Administrative powers must be exercised for lawful purposes, and persons entrusted with public resources must be able to explain decisions that appear to permit private benefit at the expense of public property.

The order also demonstrates the role of constitutional courts in ensuring that administrative inaction does not defeat the law. Courts do not ordinarily take over the routine functions of revenue authorities. However, where serious allegations suggest repeated failure to protect government land or a possible pattern of conduct that allows unlawful occupants to continue enjoying public property, judicial intervention may become necessary to require explanations and ensure accuntability.

The High Court’s directions may t