Dismissed

Shri Noratmal Chouhan and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Rajasthan HC24 Aug 2018CW/11587/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking restraint on distribution of land acquisition award. It held that since a civil suit challenging the same entitlement was already pending, the writ petition was not maintainable and proceeded were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, and the interim order issued earlier by this Court was stood vacated.

Shri Noratmal Chouhan and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 11587/2018

¶3

Shri Norairnal Chouhan Son Of Late Shri Foolchand, R/o Opposite 7 Pipli Balaji Mandir, Nasirabad Road, Ajmer.

¶4

Shri Ramesh Chouhan Son Of Late Shri Foolchand, R/o Opposite 7 Pipli Balaji Mandir, Nasirabad Road, Ajmer. I t ----Petitioners Versus %Y 3rrrb a n%j .g 3 f e.3 Union of 11ndi5~~eartrnen +, .?.I%* 0fik-aJl:$ay Ministry Through Its Secr&t$r$, hew Delhi. : ,or "--. 4 * %. -v r .&-' Chiefe hroject Coordinator Freight Corrjdor cReme Dfccil, ,<,. $ 'i-*fA ***li":** .a* A-Txircu'lar i Road, Ajmer. 44 P 3.. Sub Divisional Officer Land cquisitidh Officer; Indian Railway, Oollectorate P7 Ca,mp.u-s, -.? ; ;, .*; jmei a;;v-.--. $,% Harbans Singw%odf6fi 4Shii-+Ciurubachan Singh, Rjo f'- %J&l+%$#:&$w?h .f-r- Pra kash Roa$$$.g~~~~@&~&

¶5

Singh, R/o

¶6

Manjeet Gingh Singh, R/o Prakash Road,

¶7

Jeetendra Singh, R/o
Pra kash
I
R/o Prakash
----Respondents
'i -A
"$yWy".,** ..rnii.l
.,. am. k C*?d.Z 4-f $z3'
I ',2{ 9. b .i? %18 Z
For Petitioner(s) 1 : Mr. Dilip Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.C. Sharma

¶8

Mr. Mahendra Goyal Mr. Dharmendra Pareek, GC

¶9

t 3 A HON'BLE ~k. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶10

Order

¶11

24/08'/2018

¶12

This matter comes upon an application for vacating the

¶13

inteii'm #order passed by this Court.

¶14

Taking into consideration the arguments to be advanced would be same as for the main petition, both the counsel have prayed to decide writ petition itself. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent with regard to maigtainability of this writ petition. It is submitted that as the petitioner has already filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge East Ajmer seeking injunction not to distribute the amount to the respondents No.4 to . !., 'fff .'$- $ 'fn:'V 8 and since the sai&?st%sstl.l -p.er$dlngZ;pparallel proceedings xj '* 8. %-A a"* e - d k"% cannot be continued in this court. ? rs. 4 k., Y Leared'counsel for the respondents f *" 4-p' this Cowt has restrained by interim

¶15

petitioners. house an 'Rs quo, the actual prayer made <'$, - 5:,-:$,.,,*% 8 in the writ petition i of compensation as against the answering submission that the writ court would .not ex ding of the entitlement of the petitioner for nt which is subject- matter of the civil suit.

¶16

Learned couns the other hand submits that the SDO has the compensation of award in favour of the 8 without jurisdiction. % =% Earlier, he had filed tti~~~~$t$@Zft~~?$ore this Court wherein % 4 11 directions were issued to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners. Since the compliance of the order was not made, petitioner preferred the present writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner has not concealed any fact from this court and also mentioned about the civil'suit. ! 1. .. %I>-

¶17

Having lieard both the counsel, I find that the petitioner by way of this writ petition has exclusively prayed to restrain the respondents No.1. to 3 not to distribute the award to responhents

¶18

No.4 to 8 in pursuance of the order dated 21.02.2018. Similar prayer has been made in the injunction case filed before the civil suit and the question whether the amount should be paid to the petitioner or to the respondents No.4 to 8 is a subject-matter of adjudication before the civil suit at Ajmer.

¶19

Parall'el .proceedings for the same claim cannot be taken up in more than one court. As civil suit is already pending the present writ petition d the present forum adopted by the writ

¶20

required to be vacated.

¶21

Accordingly, dismissed as not . ,,," - i maintainable. Interi by this Court shall 8 I

stand vacated.

No costs.

J.,

KASH SHARMA),J

MohitR56

Shri Noratmal Chouhan and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Noratmal Chouhan and Anr. v. Union of India 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

M/S National Collateral Management Service Limited Vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary to the Government

M/S Connoisseur Develop Pvt. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sushila Devi D/O Shri Swaroop Singh W/O Shri Kamal Singh Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan through Secretary

Rudhmal and Anr. Vs B O R Ajmer and Ors.

Ram Kishore Jat S/O Late Shri Kalyan Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Yadav Wife of Praveen Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan