Dismissed

Narendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Apr 2019CW/1599/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an ex-parte interim stay order passed by Additional Collector, Jodhpur, halting his construction. High Court held that petitioner had liberty to contest the stay petition before the Authority. Petitioner failed to file reply, so petition dismissed with liberty for petitioner to raise jurisdictional issues before the Authority.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner directed to file reply before the Additional Collector. Liberty granted to raise jurisdictional issues before the Authority.

Narendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 1599/2019

¶3

Narendra Singh S/o Shri Mod Singh, Aged About 64 Years, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Village Kankani, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Department Of Panchayatraj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

Additional Collector-I, Jodhpur.

¶8

Pep Singh S/o Babu Singh,, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Village Kankani, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.M. Parihar

¶11

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶12

Judgment

¶13

04/04/2019

¶14

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming for the following relief:

¶15

“by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order order dated 30.1.2019 (Annex.10) passed by learned Additional Collector-I, Jodhpur in Revision Petition No.31/2019 titled as “Pep Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat & Ors.,” may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

¶16

The petitioner was holding certain title, which was challenged by private respondent by preferring revision petition no.31/2019. While hearing revision petition, an ex-parte interim order was passed on 03.1.2019 against the present petitioner, on which, the present petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[CW-1599/2019]

¶19

No.984/2019 before this Court wherein following order was

¶20

passed :

¶21

“ The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 03.01.2019 passed by the Additional Collector-I, Jodhpur in Revision Petition No.31/2019 (Pep Singh Versus Gram Panchayat, Kankani). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on a revision petition being filed against the petitioner by one Mr.Pep Singh, the Additional Collector-I, Jodhpur while issuing the notice has granted an interim order and further stopped the construction which petitioner was carrying out as per the permission granted to him and was having a valid Patta issued on 07.01.1991.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case suitable direction is given to the Additional Collector-I, Jodhpur to hear the petitioner and then to pass an appropriate order on revision petition, the petitioner is ready to go back and appear before the Additional Collector-I, Jodhpur in revision petition.

¶23

This Court finds that the order dated 03.01.2019 has been arbitrarily passed by the Additional Collector-I, Jodhpur, whereas in fact the Patta is said to have been issued to the petitioner in the year 1991 and he is having a valid permission for construction, the stoppage of construction by the ex-parte impugned order is not justified in the facts of the case and is accordingly set aside.

¶24

The present writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Additional Collector-I, Jodhpur who has already fixed the next date on 28th January, 2019.

¶25

The respondent No.2-Additional Collector, I, Jodhpur is directed to hear both the parties and pass a reasoned order on the stay application.

¶26

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.”

¶27

(3 of 4)

¶28

[CW-1599/2019]

¶29

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in pursuance of order dated 24.1.2019 approached learned Authority on 28.1.2019 and submitted his ‘vakalatnama’ and sought time to complete instructions. The matter was then posted on 29.1.2019. Then the matter was again listed on 30.1.2019 and an application was moved on behalf of counsel for the petitioner seeking adjournment on the ground that he is visiting Kumbh Mela and is not in a position to attend the court. Counsel for the petitioner submits that rather then granting adjournment, the learned Authority proceeded to pass impugned interim order 30.1.2019. Counsel for the petitioner submits that order dated 30.1.2019 (Annex.10) being an ex-parte order is arbitrary and illegal, thus, deserves to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.

¶30

Counsel for the respondent submits that the order impugned is neither arbitrary nor illegal because this Hon’ble Court while disposing of earlier writ petition had given date of 28.1.2019 for the petitioner to contest his case and file reply/objection, if any before the learned Authority. Counsel for the respondent further submits that sufficient opportunity was given to petitioner to contest his application for stay and as the land belongs to government and the petitioner instead of choosing to file reply and contesting the matter continued with construction, thus, the impugned order has rightly been passed. Counsel for the respondent further submits that interim order passed on 30.1.2019 is for limited period till the petitioner files his own reply and argue on stay petition, therefore, the proper course for the petitioner was to file reply before the learned Authority and make his final arguments on the stay application.

¶31

(4 of 4)

¶32

[CW-1599/2019]

¶33

The impugned order is merely an ad-interim order and the petitioner is having all liberty to file his reply and argue on stay petition before the learned Authority below. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows :-

¶34

“izkFkhZ vfHkHkk"kd }kjk izLrqr fuxjkuh esa LFkxu izkFkZuk i= ij cgl o ml ij fu.kZ; gksus rd vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 mDr fooknxzLr vkjkth ij fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ fuekZ.k ugha djsxk o ugha djok;sxkA“

¶35

Counsel for the petitioner in his rejoinder arguments submitted that he has taken taken some additional points in the writ petition regarding jurisdiction of learned Authority which may also may be ordered to be decided by the learned Authority.

¶36

After hearing learned counsel for the parties this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has a choice of contesting his stay petition before the learned Authority by filing his reply and since he has not filed his reply even now, it shall be appropriate that he files his reply to the stay petition and contest his stay petition before the learned Authority. The stay petition as per the impugned order is pending adjudication. Thus, no intervention in the writ petition is called for and the same dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to take all his issues regarding jurisdiction and any other issues before the learned Authority below, who shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law.

¶37

(Dr. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶38

Sanjay

Narendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

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

Ramdev Birda Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Kumar Sindal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Sita Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mtm Employees Staff Consumer Co-Operativ Vs the O.L. M/S Mewar Textiles and Anr.

Mtm Employees Co-Operative Thrift and C.S Vs the O.L. M/S Mewar Textiles and Anr.