Boundary Wall Becomes Bone of Contention Between Temple Authorities, Villagers in Rajasthan

Reported by

Ashish Gaur

Legal Data by

Edited by

Updated by

Published on

March 7, 2019

March 7, 2019

Updated on

March 7, 2019

Location of Conflict

Silor

Bundi

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Communal/Ethnic Conflict

Construction of boundary wall around temple premises

(

)

People Affected by Conflict

4000

Households Affected by Conflict

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

ha

Starting Year

2011

State

Rajasthan

Sector

Land Use

The residents of Silor village in Rajasthan's Bundi district are in conflict with Adishwar Jain temple over access to a common road. According to the Silor Gram Panchayat (Village Council), the temple administration is trying to construct a boundary wall along its premises, which will block a common pathway leading to the government school and the Charbhuja Nath temple in the village. Kusumlata Kushwah, the sarpanch of Silor Village Council told Land Conflict Watch that the dispute started in 2011 when the temple board first wanted to build a wall. She claimed that the land for the common path belongs to the Village Council and not the temple administration. Kushwah said that the residents and the temple administration had reached a consensus that no wall would be built. Nearly 4,000 villagers will be affected if the boundary wall is constructed, she said. Villagers allege in March 2019 the temple constructed the boundary wall, blocking the road. On March 6, the villagers got into an altercation with temple authorities and pelted stones at each other, in which six persons were injured. Later, a cross FIR was registered by both the parties at the Sadar police station. Sadar police incharge Amar Singh told Land Conflict Watch that the villagers had demolished the boundary wall and pelted stones, following which the Jain community in the village lodged an FIR with the police. A case was registered against eight people. The villagers also filed an FIR against the temple administration for stone pelting. Police had to deploy additional force in the area to avoid communal clashes. Later, senior police officials tried to defuse the tension by holding talks with both the sides to reach an agreement. According to tehsildar Bharat Singh Rathore, the district administration has directed both the parties to maintain status quo on the common path.

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for better access to common land/resources

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common

Type of Common Land

Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Other, Case Laws

Legislations/Policies Involved

Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996
Rule 165: This rule empowers the Panchayat to remove encroachments on Abadi (common) land once an instance of trespass is detected
Jagpal Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (2011 (11) SCC 396, Supreme Court)
The Court held that encroachment of common land vested in the Panchayat was a blatant illegality, which must not be condoned.
  1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  4. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  5. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  6. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  7. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute

Yes

What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?

What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?

Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:

Lack of legal protection over land rights

Legal Status:

Out of Court

Status of Case In Court

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

Name of the adjudicatory body

Name(s) of the Court(s)

Case Number

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

Physical attack

Whether criminal law was used against protestors:

Yes

Reported Details of the Violation:

On March 6, 2019, the villagers and the temple administration had a dispute over the construction of a boundary wall along the temple's premises. The next morning, both the parties got into an altercation and pelted stones at each other. Six people sustained injuries in the stone pelting.

Date of Violation

March 7, 2019

Location of Violation

Nature of Protest

Stone pelting

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Rajasthan Government

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Sadar, police in-charge Amar Singh He said the villagers had demolished the boundary wall and pelted stones, following which the Jain community in the village lodged an FIR with the police.

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Local villagers

Resources Related to Conflict

  • News Articles Related to the Conflict:
  • Documents Related to the Conflict:
  • Links Related to the Conflict:

Image Credit:  

Image Credit:  

Documented By

Text Link

Reviewed By

Text Link

Updated By

Text Link

Edited By

Text LinkLand Conflict Watch
X

Support our work

Your contribution ensures continuity of this crucial project.

As a member, you will get exclusive access to special reports, policy papers and research projects undertaken by Land Conflict Watch and behind-the-scenes interactions with the writers and researchers about their work.
Join Now