Dismissed

Govind Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Muktilal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Feb 2019CW/2564/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ application challenged an approval order and building construction permission granted to the respondents. The petitioners, claiming tenancy, sought to prevent eviction arguing violation of established procedures. The bench found no ground for interference as the approvals were in accordance with law and court directions.

What the court decided

AI extract

Govind Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Muktilal Sharma Vs State… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 2564/2019

¶3

Govind Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Muktilal Sharma, B/c Brahmin R/o Kanvarpura Road, Ichchapurn Balaji Temple Ke Samne Wali Gali, Vinayak Vihar D, In Back Of Transformer, Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶4

Smt. Manju Bala W/o Shri Om Prakash Balai, R/o Shastri Nagar, Infront Of Nehru Park, Salasar Road, Sikar (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

Senior Town Planner, Directorate, Local Self Government Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, G-3, Rajmahal Residency Area, Civil Line Phatak, 22 Godam, C Scheme, Jaipur

¶9

Commissioner, Nagar Parishad Sikar Rajasthan

¶10

Yogesh Mathur S/o Late Shri Jagdish Narayan Mathur, R/o Mohalla Rayji Ka, Chota Talab Road, Near Salasar Stand, Sikar.

¶11

Sushma Mathur S/o Late Shri Ganesh Narayan Mathur, R/o Mohalla Rayji Ka, Chota Talab Road, Near Salasar Stand, Sikar.

¶12

Nitin Mathur S/o Late Shri Ganesh Narayan Mathur, R/o Mohalla Rayji Ka, Chota Talab Road, Near Salasar Stand, Sikar.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajid Ali

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CW-2564/2019]

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶18

Order

¶19

01/02/2019

¶20

Aggrieved of the approval order dated 15^th May, 2018, (Annexure-8) and the Building Construction Permission dated 12^th September, 2018 (Annexure-10); the petitioners have instituted the present writ application.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners vociferously argued that the petitioners are tenants in the shops which are situated on the ground floor that has been surrendered and approval so also permission, accorded by the State-respondents. According to learned counsel though proceedings have been instituted seeking eviction of the petitioners, yet the petitioners are entitled to retain their possession and cannot be deprived of their livelihood, contrary to the procedure establishment by law.

¶22

Learned counsel would further contend that on the pretext of compliance of the order made by the High Court in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.1554/2004; Gulab Kothari v/s State; the petitioners are sought to be evicted contrary to the procedure establish by law.

¶23

Heard and considered.

¶24

A glance of impugned order dated 15^th May, 2018 would reflect that the approval has been accorded in accordance with law. The building construction has been permitted with specific terms and conditions as per the details of the setbacks, side-1, side-2, height of elevation, BAR, including parking facilities as per the drawing of the proposed constructions to be raised. The approval has been made keeping in view the applicable Unified Building Bye Laws of 2017; on the terms and conditions stipulated

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CW-2564/2019]

¶27

therein with specific reference to the directions issued by this Court on PIL ( supra ), on 12^th January, 2017, 8^th August, 2017, 14^th October, 2017 and orders made by the State Government in consonance therewith.

¶28

Permission for building construction vide order dated 12^th September, 2018, has been issued strictly in accordance with Unified Building Bye Laws of 2017, as per drawings submitted therewith for construction of basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor with provisions for residential and commercial establishments.

¶29

On cumulative consideration of the impugned approval order dated 15^th May, 2018, and building construction permission accorded vide order dated 12^th September, 2018; this Court finds no ground for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

In the result, writ application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶31

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶32

Chauhan/165

Govind Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Muktilal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Govind Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Muktilal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dulari Devi Widow of Shri Narayan Lal Vs the Commissioner Nagar Parishad

Mahaveer Chouhan S/O Kanhiyalal Chouhan, by Cast Chouhan Vs Dinesh Chand Saini S/O Kundanlal Saini, by Cast Saini

U M D Maharani College Vs National Council for Teacher Education

Smt. Neelam Sharma W/O Late Shri Umesh Sharma Vs Jogendra Singh S/O Late Shri Basant Singh

Ranveer Singh S/O Shri Matadeen Vs Asstt. Engineer Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Rajesh Gupta S/O Late Shri Kishanlal Badhera Vs Premkanta Badhera W/O Late Shri Kishanlal Badhera