Pasture (Gochar) Land in Special Investment Region Vests in Development Authority by Operation of Law: Rajasthan High Court

Explains the rule of noscitur a sociis as a rule of construction.

'By' an Act means a provision directly enacted in the statute; 'under the Act' covers what subordinate law-making authorities do; applied to hold that vesting by Rule 136 of the 1996 Rules is not vesting by virtue of an Act.

The Supreme Court refused to substitute 'of' for 'under'; cited for the rule that words are not added to a statute.

A statute is the edict of the legislature, distinct from a statutory instrument by which a rule-making power is exercised.

The legislature enacts laws with complete knowledge of the existing laws on the same subject.

Decisions on the use of natural resources are tested on judicial-review principles, including sustainable development; relied on by the State and quoted by the Court on the sustainable-development plea.

Gram Sabha land must be kept for the villagers and encroachments removed; distinguished as a case of encroachment, not vesting by operation of law.

The power to change the classification of pasture land must be exercised sparingly in the larger public interest; distinguished because the pasture land here vested by operation of law in an authority constituted for public interest.

Relied on by the petitioners on the premise that Oran (forest) land had been transferred; that premise was found incorrect.

A case on the allotment of spectrum on a first-come-first-served basis; held to have no application.

Allotment of village ponds to private industrialists was declared illegal; protection of village commons safeguards Article 21 rights.

Pond land vested under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act could not be allotted for construction; distinguished as a case of allotment to private persons, not statutory vesting.

Use of Gochar land contrary to its permissible use, by the State or a third party, cannot be allowed.

A riverbank hotel construction contrary to a government order; held not to help the petitioners.

De-reservation of Gochar only in exceptional circumstances and by the prescribed procedure; distinguished as no de-reservation under the 1955 or 1956 Act was involved.

Allotment of charagah land for a nursing college was upheld; distinguished as the present case is one of vesting by operation of law.

Reliance held misplaced in law and on facts.

Protection of water reservoirs and catchment areas; no catchment area had vested or been transferred here.

Mining activities on pasture land were held impermissible.

Traditional village water sources must be protected; no application as no water body had vested or been transferred.

Allotment of public utility land to a private company was held illegal.

Allotment of plots reserved as talab to private respondents; held not to aid the petitioners.

Encroachment on Gair Mumkin Agore (water catchment) land; held of no help.

Tenancy rights cannot accrue in a catchment area (Gair Mumkin Johad), relying on Section 16 of the 1955 Act.

A challenge to orders and circulars regularising unauthorised occupants; reliance held misplaced on facts.

Cited by the Advocate General: jamabandi entries do not confer title.

Cited by the Advocate General with Suraj Bhan: revenue records do not confer title.

Cited by the Advocate General for the submission that there is no absolute bar against transfer of Gochar land.

Placed by the Advocate General: the earlier restraint on altering Gochar entries was modified to require strict adherence to the rules for any regularisation.