Allowed

Smt Sushila Devi v. the Secretary U D H Dep andORS

Rajasthan HC7 Dec 2016CW/9839/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A resident held a 1991 civil decree decreeing regularization and citizenship of a 197.95 sq. yard plot. The Development Authority later issued notices in 2005 for a much higher fee. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the notices and directing regularization at 25% of the reserve price under a 2002 Government order, upholding equality under Article 14.

What did the court decide?

Notices dated 14.12.2005 and 21.11.2006 are quashed; respondents directed to regularize the land at 25% of the reserve price.

Smt Sushila Devi Vs the Secretary U D H Dep andORS — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9839/2009

¶3

Smt. Sushila Devi, w/o Shri Narain Sain, aged about 51 years, resident of House no. 5, Shankar Nagar Kagdiwada, Jaipur

¶4

... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Deptt. Government Secretariat,Jajpur .rt xi. $.'iN @&p 2. The Commissjon.rJa~pur ewelolj$dnt Authority, Jaipur &,'L ". _f"?kF_ 3. The Secreta,r;y, Jalpur Development Authonfiy, Jaipur ""kr2 %&g 4. Dy. 8phissioner Zone-2, Jaipur DevelopmentjAuthority. '$ :!--q-* 3 . ..Nori'Petitioners ,a

¶7

For Petitioners :
For Respondents :

¶8

.-
For Respondents :
HON'BLE MR. SHARMA

¶9

Date of Judgment ecember, 2016

¶10

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a resident of Plot 110.5, Shankar Nagar, Kagdiwara, Jaipur ad-measuring 197.95 Sq. Yards and she alongwith her family is residing there over the last 90 years. A notice was issued to her to vacate the aforesaid land and to demolish the construction on the ground of unauthorized occupancy of the aforesaid land.

¶11

Against- the action on the part of JDA, the petitioner filed a

¶12

civil suit for permanent injunction against IDA in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The learned trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 18.2.1991 decreed the civil suit and the respondents therein were restrained from removing the pacca and kachcha house of the petitioner and to allow the petitioner to use the plot in her possession peacefully. It was also directed that the petitioner shall also be entitled for regularization of her aforesaid plot after sympathetic ,ds &b HIG,J:~ consideration byzthe, JDA authortes. ISIS selevant to mention F ;:* here that the$j.udgment and decree dated vs '3. fin the civili';'~$urt was not challenged by

¶13

same attained fina in the meeting of BPC, Shankar Nagar Sch rah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited was app 851- per Sq.Yards . Thereafter for re Ities, a campaign was carried out, and acc issued by the Local Self Government De , wherein in clause 5, relaxation was gr ted 1.1.2002 issued with regard to regularization e unauthorized possessions, and it was made clear that the regularization of unauthorized possession over the plots ad-measuring 200 Sq. Yards in abadi land before the year 1981, could be done @ 25% of the reserve price and regularization of the unauthorized possession over the plots after the year 1981, but before 31.12.1991 could be done @ 50% of the reserve mice.

¶14

The petitioner is said to have submitted the representation to consider her case and to regularize the land, but nothing was done in the matter and on the contrary, the respondents issued the notice dated 14.12.2005 asking her to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,72,855/-. In such circumstances, the petitioner again submitted a representation to the respondents requesting that the regularization rate is at higher side, the plot in considering her

¶15

4,72,855/- and to d f the challan in the office. The petitione r demand of justice upon the responde ed the instant writ petition.

¶16

Learned counsel s contended that the

¶17

f Article 14 of the Constitution of Ind that no different .. - .~ .- ---yardsticks can be used for -? similarly situated persons. Once the q3!4 .$.< 9; tz, @!,q' L' . decree dated 18.2.1991 was not challenged by the JDA and it attained finality, the respondents were under obligation to comply with the judgment and decree dated 18.2.1991 and to regularize her land at pat-$ with other similarly situated persons. He has further contended that the respondent JDA cannot take advantage of its lapses in the matter by charging regularization fee at the rates applicable in the year 2005. As a matter of fact,

¶18

the petitioner is entitled for regularization of the rates which were applicable on the date of filing of the suit in the year 1983. He has placed reliance on the order dated 24.9.2002 issued by the State Government, whereby relaxation was granted in the Circular dated 1.1.2002 issued with regard to regularization of the unauthorized possessions, and it was made clear that the regularization of unauthorized possession 20.0 ,Sq. Yards before the year klj!~ as % of the &Ee?erve price and the unauthorized possession"^^ P ,. the i., -. plots ,PL YTp.% -$Y 3 1981, but before 31.12.1991 could,ba done @ 50% of the reserve :L view of the matter, he has requested that the allowed, as prayed th

¶19

kned counsel for the respondents has vehe he same and contended that petitioner is no letter of allotment petitioner is not entitl eatment, as has been given to other allottees. She has further contended that the petitioner is an encroacher, as such the writ petition filed by her deserves to be dismissed.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

¶21

It is a fact that the petitioner is having possession over the plot ad-measuring 197.95 Sq. Yards and she

¶22

alongwith her family is residing there over the last 90 years. It is also a fact that civil court passed the judgment and decree in favour of the petitioner on 18.2.1991 and thereafter, the JDA or any other person did not challenge the same. Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court attained finality.

¶23

It is also a fact that the Government of Rajasthan issued an order dated 24.9.2002, wherein in clause 5, the relaxation was it was made clear that the over the

¶24

regularization of th ssion over the plots after the year 1981 1 could be done @ 50% of the reserve der dated 24.9.2002 nowhere envisages tha& f allottees of Housing cbopei-ative Societie ile acting upon the said order, various ions have been regularized and th to have been discriminated without any rhyme and reason. U rc@q~w epje;

¶25

I find substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed.

¶26

In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed, the notices dated 14.12.2005 and 21.11.2006 stand - quashed and set-aside and the respondents are directed to regularize the land of the petitioner @ 25% of the re'serve price

¶27

in the light of the order dated 24.9.2002 issued by. the

¶28

Government of Rajasthan.

¶29

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

Smt Sushila Devi v. the Secretary U D H Dep andORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sushila Devi v. the Secretary U D H Dep andORS

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

Smt Hawa Kanwar Vs Shri Suwa Lal and Another

Kapil Punjabi Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Sunita Meena Vs Shri Naresh Pal Gangwar and Others

Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Gopal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp