Disposed

Laxmichand S/O Sh. Radharaman v. the State of Raj.

Rajasthan HC7 Oct 2020CW/11750/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against rejection of interim relief in land boundary dispute. Court directed appointing a commissioner to demarcate disputed land with parties present, allowing fresh consideration of stay application on receipt of report.

What did the court decide?

Direct Appellate Court to appoint Court Commissioner to demarcate disputed land with parties present. Petitioner to move fresh stay application upon receipt of report.

Laxmichand S/O Sh. Radharaman Vs the State of Raj. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11750/2020

¶3

Laxmichand S/o Sh. Radharaman, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Lal Darwaja Town Kaman Tehsil Kaman Dist. Bharatpur Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Raj., Through Tehsildar Kaman Tehsil Kaman Dist. Bharatpur Raj.

¶7

Assistant Engineer, Pwd, Kaman Tehsil Kaman Dist. Bharatpur Raj.

¶8

Executive Officer, Municipal Board Kaman Tehsil Kaman Dist. Bharatpur Raj.

¶9

Dist. Collector, Bharatpur Raj.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

[Present through Video Conferencing]

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Brij Kishore Sharma, Adv.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶14

Order

¶15

07/10/2020

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed by the plaintiffpetitioner challenging the order dt. 10^th September, 2020, passed by the Additional District Judge, Kaman, District Bharatpur, whereby he has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC for grant of interim order during pendency of the miscellaneous appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dt. 20^th August, 2020, whereby the temporary injunction application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge No. 1, Kaman.

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-11750/2020]

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta, submitted that the Appellate Court has passed non-speaking order and further, the Court has failed to consider that the petitioner is admittedly owner of the land bearing Khasra Nos.1210 and 1211 (old Khasra No.2743 and 2744) measuring in total 0.5 Hectares.

¶20

Learned counsel submitted that the respondents-defendant were within their right to construct in the land bearing Khasra No.1209 (Old Khasra No.2745) measuring 1.63 Hectares, however, without any proper demarcation of the land, the respondents started making construction in the land belonging to the petitioner.

¶21

Mr. Brij Kishore Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-caveator, submitted that it was duty of the petitioner to have demarcation of his own land bearing Khasra No.1210 and 1211 and as such, both the Courts below have not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner for temporary injunction.

¶22

This Court has gone through the order passed by the Courts below.

¶23

The attention of the Court was drawn towards Annexure-16, wherein demarcation of the land bearing Khasra No.1209 was done by the certain officials of the Revenue Department.

¶24

The perusal of the said demarcation report dt.8^th July, 2020 shows that the Officers of the Revenue Department were present and no person from the side of the petitioner was present.

¶25

This Court finds that the present controversy can be decided after proper demarcation of the land belonging to the respondents as well as the land belonging to the petitioner.

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CW-11750/2020]

¶28

This Court deems it proper to direct the Appellate Court to appoint the Court Commissioner to go to the site and to have demarcation of the land bearing Khasra No.1209 in his presence. The Officers of the Revenue Department will be present at the time of inspection and demarcation of the land. The representatives of the petitioner will also be present at the time of demarcation of the land.

¶29

The Court Commissioner will also be entitled to submit the said report to the Appellate Court after the same is prepared in presence of both the parties by the Revenue Department.

¶30

The petitioner would be free to move appropriate application before the Appellate Court after such report is received and the Court below after taking into relevant consideration and material, will apply its mind and pass fresh order on the stay application of the petitioner.

¶31

The present writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above directions.

¶32

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶33

Preeti Asopa/Monika/29

Laxmichand S/O Sh. Radharaman v. the State of Raj.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmichand S/O Sh. Radharaman v. the State of Raj.

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

Rajesh Kumar Yadav S/O Govind Ram Yadav Vs Department of Administrative Reforms and Coordination

Krishna Kumar Yadav S/O Gopal Lal Yadav Vs Department of Administrative Reforms and Coordination

Kshitij Kumar Choudhary S/O Shri Suryapal Choudhary, Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Jahnvi Vijay Daughter of Dr. Sandeep Vijay Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Sophiya Handicrafts Vs Bank of India

Sita Ram Son of Gopal Ram Vs Mukesh Kumar Son of Sultanram