Allowed

Jugal Kishore Chanda Advocate v. State Urban Imp. Deptt.. and Anr.

Rajasthan HC17 Nov 2021CW/2953/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the cancellation of plot allotments to advocates on the ground of income exceeding Rs. 20,000. The Court held that since similar allotments were sanctioned for government servants in the same category, the petitioners could not be kept in a prejudicial position. The petitions allow with a direction to allot the plots.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions allowed. Respondents directed to allot the concerned plots to petitioners on the same terms and conditions or make alternate allotment of plots of the same size if not vacant.

Jugal Kishore Chanda Advocate Vs State Urban Imp… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

[CW-2953/2011]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2953/2011

¶5

Jugal Kishore Chanda Advocate

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Urban Imp. Deptt.. And Anr

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7161/2011

¶12

J. P. Joshi

¶13

----Petitioner Versus

¶14

State Jda And Ors

¶15

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. JK Chanda Mr. Khet Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Manoj Bhandari Mr. Rajendra Choudhary

¶16

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶17

Order

¶18

17/11/2021

¶19

In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the UIT, Jodhpur launched a Scheme for advocates namely “Ramraj Nagar Yojna (Chokha)”, Jodhpur. The petitioners, namely, Mr. J.K. Chanda and Mr. JP Joshi applied for allotment of plots in category D i.e. plot size 322.46 Sq. Meters and 250 Sq. Meters and deposited the requisite amounts, receipts whereof are on record.

¶21

(2 of 3) [CW-2953/2011]

¶22

Following the procedure laid down for allotment as prescribed under Rule 17 of the Disposal of Urban Property Rules, 1974, the applications invited were put in lottery and plot no.360 and Plot No.298 in Sector-1 at Ramraj Nagar, Chokha, Jodhpur were allotted to petitioners Mr. JK Chanda and Mr. JP Joshi respectively and allotment letters were also issued. The petitioners were asked to deposit a sum of Rs.3,36,658/- and Rs.2,55,413/- respectively against the balance cost of plots within a period of 30 days, which was deposited by the petitioners.

¶23

The respondents, however, sent a letter dated 28.02.2011, by which allotment of petitioners’ plot has been cancelled forfeiting the security amount on the count that petitioners’ income was found above Rs.20,000/- per month.

¶24

Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide Annex.11 dated 02.09.2008, the respondents have allotted 22 plots to Government servants in the first category having income above Rs.20,000/- per month.

¶25

Counsel for the respondent, though, opposes the submission but is unable to refute that Government servants in the same Scheme at Ramraj Nagar, Chokha, Jodhpur have been allotted plots in same category having income above Rs.20,000/-per month, which has been approved by State Government.

¶26

This Court after going through record of case and hearing the submissions made by counsel for the parties finds that since the State Government has accorded sanction to allotment of 22 plots in favour of Government servants in the same Scheme, in the same category having income above Rs.20,000/- per month, then there is no reason why the petitioners, who being Advocates, are being deprived of the same benefit. This Court also finds that the

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

[CW-2953/2011]

¶29

total amount as sought by respondents has already been deposited by petitioners and although cheque was given back but the petitioners but as they have not encashed the cheque, thus, the amount continues to remain with respondents and the respondents are in possession of vacant plots.

¶30

The discrimination made on count of income above Rs.20,000/- for advocates is set aside considering the fact that UIT, Jodhpur had launched the Scheme for advocates and they cannot be kept at a prejudicial position vis-a-vis other allottees.

¶31

In view of aforesaid discussion, both the writ petitions are allowed with the direction to the respondents to allot the plots concerned to the petitioners herein on the same terms and conditions as was allotted to them. The plots allotted, if are not vacant and have been allotted to somebody else, then it shall be open for the respondents to make alternate allotment of plots of the same size.

¶32

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶33

85-86-nirmala/Sanjay-

Jugal Kishore Chanda Advocate v. State Urban Imp. Deptt.. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jugal Kishore Chanda Advocate v. State Urban Imp. Deptt.. and Anr.

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

Bajrang and Ors. Vs Board of Revenue, Ajmer and Ors.

United Spirits Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

United Spirits Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Thana Ram Vs Rent Tribunal

Bhanwar Singh Vs Bhikharam Chela Adunath

Indira Shiksha Prasar Sansthan Vs Satyanarayan Thakur Bardi Trust Andanr