Disposed

M/S Jain Zari Products India v. Raj State Indu Devel Invest Co.

Rajasthan HC7 Nov 2016CW/14918/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned a discrepancy between the industrial land allotted to the petitioner and the possession delivered. The court issued directions to re-measure the land, seek neighbour's NOC for the shortfall, and allot the remaining area contingent on consent, while addressing payment refunds if applicable.

What did the court decide?

The respondent to again measure the land in possession to determine the shortage. The petitioner may seek NOC from neighbours for the matching area. RIICO has two months to allot the remainder if NOC

M/S Jain Zari Products India Vs Raj State Indu Devel… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICA TURE FOR RAJAS THAN A T JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶2

5. B. CIVTL WRIT PElT770N NO. 14918/ZOlQ

¶3

M/s. Jain Zari Products (India), Proprietorship firm through its Proprietor Shri Navratan Mal Jain S/o Shri Bahadur Ma1 Jain, aged 58 years, Resident of 36, Prem Niwas, New Colony, M.I.Road, Jaipur.

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

RESPONDENTS :

¶6

Rajasthan State Industrial Developmeni and Investment Corporation Limited (A Rajasthan Government Undertaking) through Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶7

Senior Regional Manager, Regional Office RIICO (North),

¶8

Road 0.5, Vishwakarma Industrial. Area, Jaipur.

¶9

Date of Order : OTh November, 2016

¶10

HDN'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶11

Ms.Shikha Parnami, for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Tyagi, for the respondent/s.

¶12

BY THE COURT :

¶13

A short controversy involved in the present writ

¶14

¶15

petition pertains to land allotted to the petitioner for use of industrial purposes.

¶16

It is submitted that original area of land, allotted to the petitioner, was greater than lately given with physical possession. The petitioner preferred a civil suit to claim the possession of the entire land sought to be allotted to the petitioner. The respondent - Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd. (RIICO) in the meanwhile issued a letter giving out that land measuring 880 square meters is short and it can be given to the petitioner on certain conditions, but, later on, the letter written by the RIICO dated 02"~ September, 1996 was not implemented thus petitioner approached this Court earlier by filing of writ petition. It was dismissed with the direction to approach the Settlement Committee. The petitioner approached the Settlement Committee, but, it could not fetch any result thus present writ petition has been filed.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner was given entire land, so allotted, leaving 104 square meters. The RIICO has shown its willi,ngness to allot the remaining

¶18

¶19

portion of the land also, if no objection is sought from the neighbour, to whom, the land has been allotted.

¶20

In view of facts given above, so far as the RIICO is concerned, it is willing to allot the remaining land of 104 square meters, if NOC is sought from the neighbour, however, a dispute has been made by the petitioner claiming remaining land of 800 square meters.

¶21

In view of above, following directions are passed on

¶22

agreement between learned counsel for the parties :

¶23

(i) the RIICO would again measure the land, which is in possession of the petitioner on its allotment. It is to find out as to how much is the shortage of land.

¶24

(ii)after finding out shortage of land, the petitioner would be at liberty seek no objection from the neighbour, possessing it after the allotment to him and, if no objection is taken for allotment of matching area to the petitioner, the RIICO will allot the said land in favour of the petitioner.

¶25

CWP- 11918/2010

¶26

¶27

(i i i) in case, no objection is not given by the neighbour, who has been allotted the land then no further exercise needs to be undertaken because allotment made in favour of the neighbour cannot be cancelled in absence of its challenge and as he is not a party before this Court.

¶28

(4 the directions given in para (i) would be complied by the RIICO within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶29

(v) after measurement of land possessed by the petitioner, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek NOC from the neighbour for getting allotment of the deficient land and, if NOC is brought within a period of three months from the date of completion of exercise given in para No. (i) then the RIICO would undertake the exercise for allotment of remainder land to the petitioner thereupon within two months.

¶30

(vi) in case, the amount paid by the petitioner is in excess to the area possessed or allotted to them, the RIICO would refund the excess amount to the petitioner.

¶31

CLV1'- /~918/~01~~

¶32

¶33

With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition

¶34

stands disposed of.

M/S Jain Zari Products India v. Raj State Indu Devel Invest Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jain Zari Products India v. Raj State Indu Devel Invest Co.

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

Jagmohan Vs Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Smt Prakashwati Vs the Addi District Judge andORS

Smt Kailash Kumari Vs the Addi District Judge andORS

Satya Narain Gupta Vs State and Ors.

Gauri Devi Sampatram and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sindhi Panchayat Education Trust Vs State of Raj. and Ors.