Disposed

Subhash Kapoor v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Apr 2008CW/1080/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common judgment for eighteen writ petitions regarding apprehension of property demolition by UIT. Court held petitions not maintainable as final demolition order awaited but recorded direction that no building with legal title shall be demolished without due process.

What did the court decide?

No order as matter disposed; directions recorded that legal title properties shall not be demolished without due process.

Subhash Kapoor Vs State and Ors. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1053/2008 2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1056/2008 3. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1057/2008 4. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1058/2008 5. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1077/2008 6. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1078/2008 7. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1080/2008 8. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1081/2008 9. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1083/2008 10. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1084/2008 11. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1085/2008 12. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1086/2008 13. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1087/2008 14. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1088/2008 15. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1089/2008 16. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1090/2008 17. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1108/2008 18. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1109/2008 19. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1156/2008 20. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1059/2008

¶3

DATE OF ORDER :: 08-04-2008

¶4

HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,J.

¶5

Mr. M.R. Singhvi, Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Mr. K.N. Joshi, Mr. Girish Joshi, Mr. Firoz Khan, Mr. P.R. Singh, Mr. O.P. Mehta, Mr. Sanjeev Johari, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Rajvi, for U.I.T. Mr. Dinesh Mehta, Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Mr. R.S. Saluja, Mr. D.D. Chitlangi, for the respondents.

¶6

The bunch of writ petitions involve same question of law, thus were heard and decided by the common judgment.

¶7

Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the respondent UIT had put a mark on their property with the intention to demolish and for that

¶8

¶9

purpose, even in few cases, the petitioners have received notices which shows the intention of the respondents to demolish the property which is being possessed by the petitioners under a legal title.

¶10

It is contended that petitioners having the ownership of properties in dispute cannot be evicted and their properties cannot be demolished other than by due process of law. It is contended that without even undertaking the process of acquisition, the respondent UIT had demolished certain buildings on other roads and thus, taking note of this aspect, these writ petitions were filed to protect their properties so that similar action may not be taken by the UIT resulting in demolition of the properties.

¶11

Learned counsel for the UIT submits that they have simply issued a notice to the petitioners and reply pursuant to said notice yet awaited. Thus, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are premature, inasmuch as final order pursuant to the notice has not yet been passed. It is further contended that if the petitioners are in ownership of the property in dispute under legal title, the respondent UIT will not demolish their properties other than by due process of law i.e. if a property exist under a legal title/ownership of a person concerned, then without going with process of acquisition, the property in reference would not be possessed by the UIT. It is

¶12

¶13

further contended that the present writ petitions have been filed merely on apprehension.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand submits that the filing of the writ petitions is not merely on apprehension because notices were given to the owners of the properties on other roads, demolition took place simultaneously, therefore taking note of the fact that demolition took place on other roads either without issuing the notice or with issuance of the notice, the petitioners were left no option but to prefer these writ petitions to seek protection against the apprehended threat. It is further contended that the petitioners having title over the land and not being trespassers then without due process of law, they should not be dispossessed or their properties should not be demolished.

¶15

Looking to the discussion made above, it comes out that the issue involved in the present matter comes in a narrow compass, inasmuch as counsel for the parties have stated that if the properties in dispute are being possessed by the petitioners under their legal title, then without due process of law, they would not be dispossessed by the respondents. However, if anybody has encroached upon the land, then to the extent of encroachment, the petitioners can be dispossessed.

¶16

¶17

In view of the above, respondents themselves made it clear that they will not demolish the building so exist under legal title other than by due process of law. If there is any encroachment, then the issue of encroachment is required to be looked into and determined after taking note of the title documents exist with the petitioners. It is made clear that so far as respondents are concerned, they would not have authority to treat the allotment/Patta title document to be nullity, unless it is found to be totally void or forged one. Respondents would however be at liberty to challenge the validity of the Patta or allotment if it is otherwise found to be void or forged. The respondents may take up necessary process in this regard afresh. It is further made clear that respondents would otherwise be at liberty to acquire the land as per the provisions of law.

¶18

With the aforesaid observation and directions, the writ petitions are disposed of.

¶19

[Munishwar Nath Bhandari],J.

¶20

Praveen

Subhash Kapoor v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Kapoor v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanti Lal and Anr. Vs State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur,and Ors.

Prema Ram and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Rampyari and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Ram Prakash and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

M/S Rajasthan Arts and Crafts Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt.Pushpa Agarwal and Anr. Vs State and Ors.