Remanded

Kailash and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 Feb 2015CW/1329/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition against an order directing removal of illegal commercial constructions obstructing a nala, the court directed the Divisional Commissioner to decide the pending appeal expeditiously within one month and extended an interim status quo order.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur to decide the pending appeal within one month; extension of interim order maintaining status quo.

Kailash and Ors. Vs State and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

KAILASH & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVILWRIT PETITION NO.1329/14)

¶2

¶3

KAILASH & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVILWRIT PETITION NO.1329/14)

¶4

Dated:- 5.2.15.

¶5

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

¶6

Mr. Vikas Balia, for the petitioners. Ms. Kusum Rao, Additional Government Counsel. Mr.Dileep Kawadia, for respondent no.2 & 3.

¶7

By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned legality of order 7.2.14 passed by Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Udaipur, directing them to remove the illegal commercial constructions raised obstructing the right to way and blocking the Nala .

¶8

It is to be noticed that in the first instance, the petitioners were directed to remove the illegal constructions raised vide order dated 6.7.10 passed by the Tehsildar, UIT, Udaipur. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur. Since, the Divisional Commissioner does not have power to grant stay, pending disposal of the appeal, the petitioners questioned the legality of the order dated 6.7.10 by way of a writ petition being No.6310/10, which stood disposed of by this court vide order dated 25.2.13, in the following terms:

¶9

“Having heard learned counsels for the parties at some length and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur to decide the pending appeal, if any, filed by the petitioner's legal representatives under Section 91-A of the Act within a period of one month from today. The petitioners themselves or through their counsel may appear before the Divisional Commissioner in the first

¶10

KAILASH & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVILWRIT PETITION NO.1329/14)

¶11

¶12

instance on 04.03.2013 and thereafter the learned Divisional Commissioner is expected to grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. For a period of one month from today, the interim order granted by this Court shall continue and thereafter the fate of the case will be abide by the final orders, to be passed by the Divisional Commissioner and if no stay order is passed by Divisional Commissioner, the respondent-UIT will be free to proceed against the petitioner after one month from today.”

¶13

During the pendency of the appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, the Tehsildar, UIT, Udaipur has issued the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter was listed before the Divisional Commissioner on various dates, however, the matter could not be taken up for hearing inasmuch as, either the Presiding Officer was not available or the lawyers were observing strike or abstaining from work. Drawing the attention of this court to the details of the proceedings, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners remained present before the Divisional Commissioner on the dates of hearing and therefore, the delay in disposal of the appeal cannot be attributed to the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that later, the Divisional Commissioner was transferred and therefore, due to non availability of the Presiding Officer, the matter could not be taken up. Learned counsel submitted that the order impugned passed by the Tehsildar, UIT, pending disposal of the appeal before the Divisional Commissioner is nothing but an attempt to over reach the process of law.

¶15

KAILASH & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVILWRIT PETITION NO.1329/14)

¶16

¶17

On the other hand, the Additional Government Counsel submitted that now the officer transferred as Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur has already joined and therefore, the writ petition may be disposed of with the directions to the Divisional Commissioner to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioners expeditiously.

¶18

Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case noticed above, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioners expeditiously, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in terms of the directions issued by this court vide order dated 25.2.13 passed in Writ Petition No.6310/10. The interim order dated 20.2.14 passed by this court directing the parties to maintain the status quo, shall continue till the disposal of the appeal by the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, within the stipulated time. No order as to costs.

¶19

(SANGEET LODHA),J.

¶20

Aditya/

Kailash and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash and Ors. 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

Rooparam Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State and Ors.

Baby Devi Vs Allabachai and Ors.

Smt. Dhanni Devi Vs State and Ors.

Kanti Lal Soni Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bajarang Singh Vs State and Ors.