Remanded

Smt. Pushpa Devi v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Aug 2018CW/2471/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court accommodated this writ application where the Municipal Council cancelled a lease deed without conducting a hearing. The court directed the respondents to revisit the impugned order and pass a fresh decision after affording the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing within three months.

What did the court decide?

Re-direction to the Municipal Council to re-visit the order dated 12.01.2017 after granting a proper opportunity of hearing and to pass appropriate orders within three months.

Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs State and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 2471/2017

¶3

Smt. Pushpa Devi W/o Shri Purshottam Ji Agarwal , By Caste Agrawal, R/o Housing Board, Balotra, District- Barmer Raj. Through Her Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Murlidhar S/o Kesrimal Ji By Caste Agrawal Age About 53 Years Resident Of Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra District- Barmer.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary , Local Self Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director, Local Bodies , Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶8

The District Collector , Balotra, District-Barmer Raj.

¶9

The Municipal Council , Balotra, District- Barmer Through Its Commissioner.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Civil Writ No. 2517/2017

¶13

Smt. Radha Devi W/o Shri Mahesh Kumar Ji , By Caste Agrawal, R/o Housing Board, Balotra, District Barmer Raj. Through Her Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Murlidhar S/o Kesrimal Ji By Caste Agrawal Age About 53 Resident Of Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra District Barmer.

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary , Local Self Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶17

The Director , Local Bodies, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶18

The District Collector , Balotra, District Barmer.

¶19

The Municipal Council , Balotra, District Barmer Through Its Commissioner.

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

S.B. Civil Writ No. 2519/2017

¶22

Smt. Rita Devi W/o Shri Murlidhar Ji , By Caste Agrawal, R/o Housing Board, Balotra, District Barmer Raj. Through

¶23

(2 of 5)

¶24

[CW-2471/2017]

¶25

Her Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Murlidhar S/o Kesrimal Ji By Caste Agrawal Age About 53 Resident Of Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra District Barmer.

¶26

----Petitioner

¶27

Versus

¶28

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary , Local Self Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶29

The Director , Local Bodies, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶30

The District Collector , Balotra, District Barmer.

¶31

The Municipal Council , Balotra, District Barmer Through Its Commissioner.

¶32

----Respondents

¶33

S.B. Civil Writ No. 2529/2017

¶34

Smt. Rajul Devi W/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Ji , By Caste Agrawal, R/o Housing Board, Balotra, District Barmer Raj. Through Her Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Murlidhar S/o Kesrimal Ji By Caste Agrawal Age About 53 Years R/o Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra District Barmer.

¶35

----Petitioner

¶36

Versus

¶37

The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary , Local Self Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶38

The Director , Local Bodies, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶39

The District Collector , Balotra, District Barmer.

¶40

The Municipal Council , Balotra, District Barmer Through Its Commissioner.

¶41

----Respondents

¶42

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Sinha for Mr. Rajat Dave For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishabh Tayal, AAAG Mr. MS Purohit

¶43

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

03/08/2018

(3 of 5)

[CW-2471/2017]

These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs:-

¶49

“1.The impugned order dated 12.01.2017 passed by Commissioner, Municipal Council, Balotra may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.

¶50

2. If during pendency of the writ petition, the respondent No.4 proceeds to take possession of the land in question, the same may kindly be restored back in favour of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

¶51

3. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶52

4. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

¶53

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from the pleadings of the leading case being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2471/2017.

¶54

The present dispute pertains to a piece of land admeasuring 4 bighas in Khasra No.975/697 situated at Village Jasol, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer, which was under the khatedari of certain persons. The land owners sold the said land to the petitioners, who are said to be the registered purchasers of the land in question by virtue of registered sale deed dated 27.07.2009. The purchasers, including the present petitioners,

¶55

(4 of 5)

¶56

[CW-2471/2017]

¶57

constructed a boundary wall and also applied for conversion of the property in question before the competent authority under Section 90(A) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The said conversion was allowed and the disputed plots came into existence. The lease-deed in regard to the plot in question was issued in favour of the petitioner on 02.08.2013. Upon certain disputed questions of fact having been raised, the said lease-deed was cancelled on 12.01.2017, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶58

Learned counsel for the respondents are not in a position to refute the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were not specifically heard on the issue, on the basis of which the aforementioned lease-deed came to be cancelled by the Municipal Council Balotra, District Barmer on 12.01.2017.

¶59

In light of the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to re-visit the impugned order dated 12.01.2017 by giving a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from today strictly in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that the impugned order dated 12.01.2017 shall not come in the way of passing a fresh order by the respondents after proper application of mind and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners shall be free to submit whatever documents and record in their favour. It is needless to say that till the decision is taken by the respondents,

¶60

(5 of 5)

¶61

[CW-2471/2017]

¶62

as directed, no coercive steps shall be taken against the

¶63

petitioners.

¶64

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶65

sudheer

Smt. Pushpa Devi v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pushpa Devi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. C.K.M and Company Vs State and Ors.

M/S.C.K.M. and Company,Udaipur Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

State and Anr. Vs Zakir Mali and Anr.

Maan Mahendra Singh Vs Kalyan Singh and Ors.

Anita Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra Kumar Bhatt Vs State of Rajasthan