Dismissed

Om Prakash v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC10 Feb 2015CW/1387/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Municipal Board's rejection of a land possession claim. The petition was held to suffer from inordinate delay and laches, and an alternative statutory remedy was noted to be available.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed in limine; petitioner may pursue alternative statutory remedies.

Om Prakash Vs State and Ors. — Succession and Inheritance | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

OM PRAKASH CHITTORA VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1387/15)

¶2

¶3

OM PRAKASH CHITTORA VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1387/15)

¶4

Dated:- 10.2.15.

¶5

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

¶6

Mr.Sudheer Sharma, for the petitioner.

¶7

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of resolution adopted by the respondent-Municipal Board, Salumbar in its meeting held on 1.11.12, whereby the petitioner's claim for possession over the plot measuring 2050 sq. ft. and permission for raising construction, stands rejected. 2. The petitioner claims that his father Bhanwar Lal Chittora purchased a plot measuring 2050 sq. ft. situated outside Chandpole, Salumbar in open auction conducted by the Municipal Board, Salumbar. On the bid amount being deposited, a patta was issued in favour of the petitioner's father, however, physical possession of the plot was not handed over. The request made by the petitioner's father for delivery of possession was rejected by the Municipal Board vide order dated 2.8.68. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed by the Additional District Collector, Udaipur vide order dated 1.9.69 and the matter was remanded to the Municipal Board, Salumbar with the direction that if it intends to acquire the land, it may take appropriate proceedings within six months else, the permission may be granted for raising construction. However,

¶8

¶9

OM PRAKASH CHITTORA VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1387/15)

¶10

neither the possession was given to the petitioner nor the permission for raising construction was granted. It is alleged that the respondent-Municipal Board has encroached upon the said land which is presently being used as Bus Stand. After death of his father, the petitioner approached the Director, Local Bodies by way of revision petition under Section 300 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. The revision petition was disposed of by the Director, Local Bodies vide order dated 27.1.12, whereby the matter was remanded to the Municipal Board for consideration afresh in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974. Pursuant to the remand order, after giving an opportunity of hearing, the petitioner's claim for possession, stands rejected by the Municipal Board vide resolution dated 1.11.12. Hence, this petition.

¶11

Indisputably, questioning the legality of the resolution adopted by the Municipal Board, Salumbar, the petitioner has approached this court after inordinate delay of more than three and half years.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after issuance of the patta in the year 1959, the petitioner's father was in possession of the land in question. However, on 29.12.12, an employee of the respondent no.2 asked the

¶13

OM PRAKASH CHITTORA VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1387/15)

¶14

¶15

petitioner to vacate the land saying that the State Government has passed order against him and therefore, the petition is filed at this belated stage.

¶16

The stand sought to be taken by the petitioner is apparently false inasmuch as, the petitioner's father and the petitioner have been agitating their grievance regarding the possession of the land being not given to them by the Municipal Board, after issuance of the patta and therefore, the question of the petitioner being in possession of the land in question since 1959, does not arise. The writ petition filed badly suffers from delay and laches and therefore, the same deseves to be dismissed on this count alone.

¶17

There is yet another aspect of the matter. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the resolution adopted by the Municipal Board,Salumbar, nothing prevented him from availing the remedy of revision petition available to him under Section 327 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009.

¶18

In the result, the writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the writ petition by this court shall not preclude the petitioner from availing the remedy available to him under the law.

¶19

(SANGEET LODHA),J.

¶20

Aditya/

Om Prakash v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarawagi Charitable Trust, Sgnr., Vs Union of India and Anr.

Jodhpur Contractor Association Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

M/S. Jk Lakshmi Cement Ltd., Vs Addi. Commissioner, Vat and It and Anr.

Rajesh Kumar Paswan Vs Uco Bank

Raj Kumar Vs State Local Self and Ors.

Smt.Vijay Laxmi and Anr. Vs State of Raj. and Ors.