Dismissed

Bar Association Ajmer v. State U I T and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Aug 2014CW/9949/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed two writ petitions relating to land auction restraint, holding that the prayers had become infructuous as the disputed land was allotted for a court building and the Bar Association confirmed non-proceeding for contempt.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; interim order vacated; documents presented by respondent made part of the record.

Bar Association Ajmer Vs State U I T… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

(1) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9949/ 2011 Bar Association, Ajmer vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶4

(2) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10022/ 2011 Deokinadan Sharma & Anr. vs. The Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer & Ors.

¶5

Date of Order : 13.08.2014

¶6

HON ' BLE THE ACTI NG CHI EF JUSTI CE MR.SUNI L AMBW ANI HON ' BLE MR. JUSTI CE VEERENDR SI NGH SI RADHANA

¶7

None present for petitioners. Mr. Hajari Ram Sirvi, Assistant Legal Remembrancer, Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer in person. Mr. Rashtradeep Yadav, SDM, Ajmer in person.

¶8

No one appears for the petitioners. Mr.Hajari Ram Sirvi, Assistant Legal Remembrancer appears for the Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer and Mr.Rashtradeep Yadav, SDM, Ajmer appears for the State-respondents.

¶9

In this writ petition, the learned Single Judge has passed an interim order dated 29.07.2011, restraining the respondent-Urban Improvement Trust from conducting auction of the land in the Sayongeeta Nagar Yojna to be held from 01.08.2011 to 03.08.2011.

¶10

The order-sheet shows that the matter has been listed thereafter on more than 20 occasions without any effective hearing.

¶11

Mr.Rashtradeep Yadav, SDM, Ajmer, appearing in person, submits that after acquisition of the land, it was handed over to

¶12

¶13

the Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer.

¶14

Mr.Hajari Ram Sirvi, Assistant Legal Remembrancer, Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer submits that since after filing of the writ petition, 15.85 bighas of land was alloted for construction of court building vide resolution dated 05.07.2013, out of the total 24.24 bighas of land, which was allotted on lease. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.03.2014, signed by the District and Sessions Judge, Ajmer and the Commissioner, Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer dated 27.03.2014, contains a recital clause that earlier 24.24 bigha was allotted for construction of building premises on a lease for 99 years on 21.03.2013. Since the entire land was not available according to the measurements on the spot, the possession could not be given. On a revised proposal dated 05.07.2013, 15.85 bighas of land was allotted and of which the possession was given with permission to remove the encroachment by one Chhotu Singh on 200 square yard plot on the land.

¶15

We are also informed by Mr.Srivi, appearing for the Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer, that the District Bar Association, Ajmer, has given in writing to the Secretary of the Ajmer Development Authority on 14.02.2014 that since the land has now been allotted for construction of court building, the prayers, in the writ petition, have become infructuous and that the Bar Association will not take any proceeding for contempt. A copy of the letter was also addressed to the Chief Justice, Rajasthan and the Inspecting Judge, Jaipur.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid developments, in which the

¶17

¶18

petitioners have given in writing that 15.85 bighas of land has been allotted for construction of the court building, the prayers, in the writ petition, have been rendered infructuous.

¶19

The writ petitions are dismissed. The interim order is hereby vacated. The documents presented by the Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer including letter of the Bar Association dated 14.02.2014 shall be made part of the record.

¶20

A copy of this order be placed in both the files.

¶21

( VEERENDR SI NGH SI RADHANA) ,J. ( SUNI L AMBW ANI ) ,ACTI NG C.J.

¶22

Mohit 23-24

¶23

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Mohit Tak, P.A.

Bar Association Ajmer v. State U I T and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bar Association Ajmer v. State U I T 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

Vijendra Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Amar Singh Yadav and Ors. Vs State Education Departmentors

Smt Manju Devi and Ors. Vs State Education Departmentors