Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UDA RAM versus MUNICIPAL BORAD JHUNJHUNU AND

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


UDA RAM v MUNICIPAL BORAD JHUNJHUNU AND - CW Case No. 84 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 3743 (2 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

(1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 84/2007

UDA RAM Vs. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, JHUNJHUNU & ANR. &

(2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1250/2007

UDA RAM Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, JHUNJHUNU & ORS.

DATE: 02.08.2007.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE

Mr. M.M. Ranjan for the petitioners.

Mr. G.K. Garg for the respondents.

****

These are two writ petitions filed by the petitioner; one writ petition bearing No. 84/2007 is directed against the impugned order dated 13.10.2006 passed by the Minister for Local Self Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, by which the recommendations made by the

Settlement Committee (Samjauta Samiti) have been rejected.

Another connected writ petition bearing No. 1250/2007 has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 19.12.2006 passed by the Additional

Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jhunjhunu in Civil

Application No. 30/2006, whereby the temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner under

Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC has been rejected. This order dated 19.12.2006 was challenged by the petitioner before the District Judge, Jhunjhunu by way of filing appeal and the same has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide its judgment dated 20.01.2007.

In the writ petition No. 84/2007, the matter comes up on the application under Article 226(3) of the

Constitution of India for vacation of ex party interim order dated 07.05.2007, whereby status quo is ordered to be maintained.

In connected writ petition No. 1250/2007, no such order has been passed and only notices have been issued.

Since both the writ petitions relate to same piece of land, therefore, they were ordered to be listed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order.

In the writ petition No. 84/2007, the petitioner challenged the order dated 13.10.2006 passed by the Minister for Local Self Department, Govt. of Rajasthan on the ground that the Samjauta Samiti is empowered to regularise the possession of the petitioner and the Samjauta Samiti to this effect has passed the order dated 18.09.2003 that in case the petitioner deposits Rs. 750/- per Sqm. then the disputed land be regularised in favour of the petitioner. This order has been quashed and set-aside by the Minister for Local Self Department, Govt. of

Rajasthan on the ground that Samjauta Samiti has exceeded its jurisdiction and passed the order beyond its jurisdiction. It is also observed that the prices are not on the basis of market rate and thus direct loss will be caused to the Municipal Board, Jhunjhunu.

Further as per the circular dated 01.01.2002, the Samiti was only empowered to regularise the urban land measuring 300 Sq. Yard., whereas in the instant case the petitioner has encroached over the land measuring 933 Sq. Yard, therefore, the order of

Samjauta Samiti has been quashed and set-aside vide order dated 13.10.2006.

The petitioner has raised legal issues that this order dated 13.10.2006 cancelling the order passed by the Samjauta Samiti is beyond limitation as the

Samjauta Samiti has passed the order in the year 2003, whereas this order has been passed on 13.10.2006.

It is given out that the petitioner has constructed a school building over the disputed land.

Similarly in another writ petition No. 1250/2007, the petitioner filed a suit for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151

CPC and that application of the petitioner has been rejected by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division),

Jhnuhjhunu vide order dated 19.12.2006 on the ground that the petitioner is encroacher over the disputed land. It is also observed that neither the Nagar Palika has constituted any Samjauta Samiti nor recommendations of the Samjauta Samiti is complied with. Thus, the order/recommendations itself becomes non-existent. It is also observed that no balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner and having considered each and every aspect, the temporary injunction application has been rejected vide order dated 19.12.2006.

This order has been challenged by the petitioner before the District Judge, Jhnujhunu and the

Appellate Authority has considered all the aspects and the judgments passed by this Court and observed that the petitioner filed a revision petition before this

Court which was registered as Revision Petition No. 446/92 and the same was decided by this Court vide order dated 28.07.92, whereby this Court refused to interfere with the order passed by the Civil Judge and the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed observing that the petitioner is in possession of land for the last 5 years, therefore, the

Municipal Board is entitled to dispossess the petitioner in accordance with the law.

It is given out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the proceedings for dispossessing the petitioner are already initiated.

The Appellate Court considering all aspects held that the Samjauta Samiti is not empowered to give decision and the decision which was given is without competence and the petitioner has not complied with the resolutions passed by the Samjauta Samiti and the recommendations of the Samjauta Samiti have been withdrawn/cancelled by the State Government.

I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and have also gone through the impugned order passed by the Minister for Local Self

Department, Govt. of Rajasthan dated 13.10.2006 by which the order of Samjauta Samiti has been quashed and set-aside and now the Samjauta Samiti is not in existence.

Now after withdrawal of the notification which was earlier issued vide notification dated 06.08.2004, even otherwise the petitioner has not complied with the directions and failed to deposit the amount well within time and as the petitioner has not complied with the order passed by the Samjauta Samiti and the order of the Samjauta Samiti is cancelled, therefore, the petitioner has got no right on the land and he is simply an encroacher over the land.

In view of the observations made herein above, both the writ petitions fail being misconceived and the same are hereby dismissed.

The ex parte interim order dated 07.05.2007 granted by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 84/2007 also stands rejected. Accordingly, the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of

India stands allowed.

(K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.