Dismissed

Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (Riico) Ltd. v. the Addl. District Judge No. 6

Rajasthan HC25 Jan 2021WRW/3/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a review petition challenging a lease deed order. The Court held the petition was barred by a 605-day delay and laches, rejecting the COVID-19 pandemic plea. On merits, it upheld findings that RIICO land was already under an existing industry, defeating the petitioner's claim.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed on grounds of delay, laches, and merits.

Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 3/2021

¶3

Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation (Riico) Ltd., Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its Senior Deputy General Manager, Vishwa Karma Industrial Area, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Addl. District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur.

¶7

The Estate Officer Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

Pawan Kumar Son Of Shri Kistur Chand, Proprietor, Badjatya Limes Work, Jhotwara Industrial Area, Near Police Station, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.N. Kumawat For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

25/01/2021

¶14

This review petition has been preferred which is barred by 605 days. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation has been filed wherein it is revealed that the petitioner had challenged the order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1919/1999 (RIICO Ltd. Vs The Addl.District Judge & Ors.) decided on 11.04.2019, by filing an SLP before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court dismissed the same on 05.08.2019 thus the order has already attained finality.

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[WRW-3/2021]

¶17

No valid reasons have come forward. The ground of COVID19 pandemic is also not made out as the order was pronounced on 11^th April, 2019 and SLP was dismissed on 5.8.2019 while the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown was from March, 2020.

¶18

On merits also, the submission of learned counsel that the respondents have not submitted document for lease deed is also not made out. The findings arrived at by the court below namely, Estate Officer are that it cannot be said that the land was belonging to Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation (RIICO) Ltd. The Tehsildar had also withdrawn the notice u/s 91 of the Act and the conversion charges have been deposited by the SDO in the year 1959 thus when the RICCO had not even come into existence. The plea, therefore, of the petitioner that does not able to register the lease deed of the respondent is clearly not made out as the industry was already existing.

¶19

The review petition is accordingly dismissed both on the grounds of delay and laches as well as on merits.

¶20

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶21

SAURABH YADAV /670/133

Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (Riico) Ltd. v. the Addl. District Judge No. 6

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (Riico) Ltd. v. the Addl. District Judge No. 6

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

Bhanwar Singh Dhaka S/O Shri Hanuman Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs Bhanwar Lal Choudhary S/O Shri Parshuram Choudhary

Sanjiv Kumar S/O Shri Jagdish Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Hanif Son of Abdul Hamid Vs State of Rajasthan

Nasreen Banoo D/O Fakrudeen Chouhan W/O Khalid Hussain Vs State of Rajasthan

Sonu Vaishnav D/O Nand Kishor Vaishnav Vs State of Rajasthan