Quashed

Govind Sain S/O Palaram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Oct 2020CW/12781/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged notice under Section 91C of Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 alleging no encroachment. Bench refused to entertain writ against notice, granting liberty to file reply/representation within three days before any action.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file reply within three days; authorities to decide objections within seven days and await disposal of reply before taking action.

Govind Sain S/O Palaram Vs State of Rajasthan — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12781/2020

¶4

Govind Sain S/o Palaram, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Nala Ka Balaji, Tan Kundali, Tehsil, District Sikar (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Local Self Govt., Govt. Secretariat, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur

¶8

Director Local Bodies, Local Self Govt. , G-3 Rajamahal Resident Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Lines Railway Crossing, Jaipur

¶9

Urban Improvement Trust, Sikar Through Secretary, Tehsil And District Sikar

¶10

Deputy Town Planner, Palwas, Rd, Sikar, Rajashtan - 332001

¶11

Chiranjilal Saini S/o Sh. Girdharilal Saini, R/o Dadli Tehsil And District Sikar

¶12

Shrawan Kumar S/o Sh. Hemraj., R/o Dadli Tehsil And District Sikar

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Veyankatesh Garg, Adv. (through Video Conferencing).

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶16

Order

¶17

23/10/2020

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice dated 14.10.2020 has been given to the petitioner exercising power under Section 91C of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1959’). Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not made any encroachment over any land and he has only

¶19

(2 of 2) [CW-12781/2020]

¶20

constructed his boundary wall in land bearing Khasra No.306, Revenue Village, Nala Ka Balaji.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents have assumed that the construction made by the petitioner is encroaching over the sector road and as such the respondents have taken extreme step of removing the construction made by the petitioner in his own land.

¶22

This Court finds that the petitioner has been issued notice under Section 91C of the Act of 1959. This Court further finds that if the petitioner has constructed any boundary or any other construction in his own land without making any encroachment, he is always free to file reply/response to the notice issued to him.

¶23

This Court would not like to entertain the writ petition against the notice dated 14.10.2020. The petitioner is given liberty to approach the respondents by way of filing his reply/representation to the said notice and he can take all the defences available to him about the alleged construction.

¶24

This Court also expects from the Authorities that they will consider the reply/representation of the petitioner in proper manner as per law and only after hearing the petitioner, a proper decision will be taken by the respondents. The petitioner, if files reply/representation within a period of three days, the respondents would decide his objections within seven days and till disposal of the reply/representation of the petitioner, the respondents may not take any action against the petitioner.

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶26

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶27

Ramesh Vaishnav /86/Himanshu Soni 3

Govind Sain S/O Palaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Sain S/O Palaram 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajasthan Private Nursing Schools and Colleges Federation Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Ratan Enterprises Vs Rajasthan Co-Operative Dairy Federation Ltd.

Dr. Ashok Gupta, Son of Shri.Krishna Swaroop Gupta, Vs State of Rajasthan

Habib Son of Jormal Vs State of Rajasthan

Gajju Alias Gajraj Singh S/O Late Shri Durga Singh Vs Mohammad Fareed Qureshi S/O Shri Mohammad Saied Qureshi

M/S Devdashrath Mines and Minerals Vs Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Ltd.