Disposed

Mandir Shri Sitaramji v. Raj State Industrial Developme

Rajasthan HC2 May 2011CW/5688/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a writ petition regarding the allotment of land. The High Court directed the respondent corporation to hand over vacant possession of an adjacent plot, execute a lease deed, and refund a differential amount with interest within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Vacant possession of plot handed over; lease deed executed; differential amount of Rs. 27,400 paid with interest at 6% per annum.

Mandir Shri Sitaramji Vs Raj State Industrial Developme — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2011)

¶1

CW5688/2003

¶2

// 1 //

¶3

I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAI PUR

¶4

ORDER I N S. B. Ci vi l Wr i t Pet i t i on No. 5688/ 2003

¶5

Mandi r Shr i Si t ar am Ji Vs. Raj ast han St at e I ndust r i al Devel opment & I nvest ment Cor por at i on Li mi t ed and Ot her s

¶6

Dat e of Or der : : : 02. 05. 2011

¶7

Pr esent Hon' bl e Mr . Just i ce Mohammad Raf i q

¶8

Shr i Sudesh Bansal , counsel f or pet i t i oner Shr i Vi r endr a Lodha, counsel f or r espondent s no. 1 and 2 RI I CO

¶9

Shr i R. S. Bhat i , counsel f or r espondent no. 3 ####

¶10

By t he Cour t : -

¶11

Thi s cour t on 27. 07. 2009 passed f ol l owi ng

¶12

or der : -

¶13

“ I n accor dance wi t h t he or der dat ed 17. 07. 2009, Mr . Vi r endr a Lodha, submi t s t hat t he par t i cul ar pi ece of l and whi ch t he RI I CO was di r ect ed t o al l ot t he pet i t i oner , cannot be al l ot t ed, as t he RI I CO has const r uct ed a wel l on t he sai d l and. However , t he RI I CO i s wi l l i ng t o al l ot a pl ot adj acent t o t hi s par t i cul ar pi ece of l and. The pet i t i oner , on t he ot her hand, cl ai ms t hat he has cer t ai n di f f i cul t i es wi t h t he sai d pl ot t hat t he RI I CO i s pl anni ng t o al l ot t he pl ot now. Bot h t he par t i es ar e di r ect ed t o go t o t he si t e and t o see whet her i t woul d be f easi bl e f or t he RI I CO t o al l ot t he pl ot , and woul d be accept abl e f or t he pet i t i oner or not . Li st t hi s case agai n on 3^{r d} August , 2009. ”

¶14

Shr i Vi r endr a Lodha, l ear ned counsel f or r espondent RI I CO, has i nvi t ed at t ent i on of t he cour t t owar ds pet i t i oner ' s af f i davi t and submi t t ed

¶15

CW5688/2003

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

t hat al t er nat i ve l and measur i ng 300 squar e yar d as per si t e pl an has been al l ot t ed t o pet i t i oner vi de or der dat ed 31. 07. 2009 and a si t e pl an of t he pl ot has been encl osed wi t h sai d or der . I t i s ar gued t hat t he pl ot i s adj acent t o chabut r a of t empl e and sat i sf i es t he awar d of acqui si t i on.

¶18

Lear ned Counsel f or pet i t i oner has submi t t ed t hat vacant possessi on of t he pl ot has so f ar not been handed over t o pet i t i oner and boundar i es have not been ear mar ked. I t i s ar gued t hat even as per or der pr oduced by r espondent RI I CO, t ot al amount of Rs. 1, 04, 042/ - was deduct ed f or al l ot ment of t he pl ot . Respondent s, as per t he af or esai d or der dat ed 31. 07. 2009, have deduct ed a sum of Rs. 76, 642/ - t owar ds t he cost of t he pl ot and t hus di f f er ent i al amount ought t o be r et ur ned t o pet i t i oner t oget her wi t h i nt er est t her eon.

¶19

Havi ng r egar d t o t he f act s not i ced above, t he wr i t pet i t i on i s di sposed of wi t h f ol l owi ng di r ect i on:

¶20

( 1) t hat r espondent RI I CO shal l handover vacant possessi on of t he pl ot as per si t e pl an annexed wi t h or der dat ed 31. 07. 2009 wi t hi n a per i od of a f or t ni ght and i f any encr oachment i s t her e, t he St at e shal l ensur e r emoval of t he same;

¶21

( 2) t hat l ease- deed of sai d pl ot shal l be execut ed i n f avour of pet i t i oner wi t hi n a per i od of t hr ee mont hs;

¶22

( 3) t hat di f f er ent i al amount i . e. Rs. 27, 400/ - , af t er deduct i ng amount of Rs. 76642/ - f r om Rs. 1, 04, 042/ - shal l be

¶23

CW5688/2003 // 3 //

¶24

pai d t o pet i t i oner wi t h i nt er est t her eon at t he r at e of 6% per annum wi t hi n a per i od of t hr ee mont hs.

¶25

Wr i t pet i t i on i s accor di ngl y di sposed of .

¶26

( Mohammad Raf i q) J.

¶27

//Jaiman//

Mandir Shri Sitaramji v. Raj State Industrial Developme

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandir Shri Sitaramji v. Raj State Industrial Developme

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

Ajmal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Raj Asthan through Pp

Bhagwan Lal Vs State of Raj Asthan through Pp

Neeraj Vs State of Raj Asthan through Pp

Ram Lal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Padam Chand and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Gopal and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.