Disposed

M/S. Anil Food Industries v. Raj. State Indu. Deve. and Inve. Corp Andanr

Rajasthan HC9 Dec 2022CW/6256/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of batch writ petitions filed by firms seeking allotment of extra lands adjoining their industrial plots. Petitioners claimed parity with others who received additional land. The Court directed authorities to decide claims within two months after petitioners submit claims.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed; petitioners directed to submit claims for extra land to RIICO within two months; interim order continues.

M/S. Anil Food Industries Vs Raj. State Indu. Deve… — Company and Corporate | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6256/2010

¶3

M/s. Anil Food Industries, Plot No.149, Industrial Area, Rani Bazar, Bikaner through its Proprietor Kamal Chand Bothra, S/o. Sh. Subhkaran Bothra, Aged 46 years, R/o. Rani Bazar, Bikaner.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Regd. Office : Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶7

The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (Rajasthan Government Undertaking) Industrial Area, Bichwala, Bikaner.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5393/2010

¶11

M/s. Pal Industries, 34, Rani Bazar Industrial Area, Bikaner through its Proprietor Shishu Pal Kamra, S/o. Sh. Dayal Singh Kamra, Aged 48 years, R/o. Rani Bazar, Bikaner.

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Regd. Office: Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶15

The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (Rajasthan Government Undertaking) Industrial Area, Bichwala, Bikaner.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5394/2010

¶18

M/s. B. J. Woollens Mill Pvt. Ltd., 24, Rani Bazar Industrial Area, Bikaner through its Director Krishan Kumar Arora, S/o. Sh. Mohan Lal Arora, aged 50 years, R/o. Rani Bazar, Bikaner.

¶19

----Petitioner

¶20

Versus

¶21

Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Regd. Office : Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶22

(2 of 4)

¶23

[CW-6256/2010]

¶24

The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (Rajasthan Government Undertaking) Industrial Area, Bichwala, Bikaner.

¶25

----Respondents

¶26

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7640/2010

¶27

M/s. Arora Yarn Pvt. Ltd., 24, Rani Bazar Industrial Area, Bikaner through its Director Krishan Kumar Arora, S/o. Sh. Mohan Lal Arora, aged 50 years, R/o. Rani Bazar, Bikaner.

¶28

----Petitioner

¶29

Versus

¶30

Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Regd. Office : Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶31

The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (Rajasthan Government Undertaking) Industrial Area, Bichwala, Bikaner.

¶32

----Respondents

¶33

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Dharmveer Choudhary
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sharad Kothari Mr. Arivind Samdarya

¶34

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶35

Order

¶36

09/12/2022

¶37

Since the question involved in the present batch of writ petitions is of similar nature, therefore, they are being heard and disposed of by a common order. For convenience, the facts of the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6256/2010 are taken into consideration.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were allotted industrial plots by the respondents at Rani Bazar Industrial Area, Bikaner. Learned counsel further submits that there are certain piece of extra lands adjoining to the

¶40

(3 of 4)

¶41

[CW-6256/2010]

¶42

industrial plots allotted to the petitioners. The case of the petitioners is that since other similarly situated persons have been extended the benefit of allotment of additional lands adjoining to the plots allotted to them, therefore, on the same criteria, the petitioners should also be allotted the extra piece of land adjoining to their allotted plots. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, prays that the writ petitions may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to allot the additional land adjoining to the plots of the petitioners.

¶43

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the additional land existing near the plots of the petitioners have not been allotted so far, however, the petitioners have encroached upon that land without any authority to law and, therefore, the respondents have rightly issued notice for vacation of the same. The petitioners have assailed the validity of the notice dated 25.05.2010 for removal of their encroachment from the additional piece of lands adjoining to their allotted plots.

¶44

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case.

¶45

The allotment of the land to the petitioners by the respondent-RIICO is not disputed, however, certain extra lands exists near the lands of the petitioners which have been occupied by them. The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions on the ground of parity as other similar situated persons have been allotted the extra land adjoining to the lands allotted to those persons. Since the present writ petitions were filed only against the notice issued to them, therefore, the petitioners shall appear before the authorities and submit their claims for allotment of extra piece of lands. If the respondent-authorities are satisfied

¶46

(4 of 4)

¶47

[CW-6256/2010]

¶48

and the claims made by the petitioners are tenable in law, then the subject piece of extra lands adjoining to the plots of the petitioners shall be allotted to them after taking due consideration, strictly in accordance with law.

¶49

It is made clear that the persons including the intervenors who shall be affected by such allotment of land may also be heard by the Competent Authority of RIICO.

¶50

Accordingly, the present writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents authorities to decide the case of the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. For the purpose, the petitioners shall appear before the Competent Authority of RIICO on 20.12.2022.

¶51

The interim order granted by this Court shall continue till the respondents authorities decides the case of the petitioners.

¶52

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶53

28-31-nitin/-

M/S. Anil Food Industries v. Raj. State Indu. Deve. and Inve. Corp Andanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Anil Food Industries v. Raj. State Indu. Deve. and Inve. Corp Andanr

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

Ganpat Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra Chouhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Mishri Devi Vs the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan

M/S. B. J. Woollens Mill Pvt. Ltd. Vs Raj. State Indu. Deve. and Inve. Corp andANR

Jotaram Vs Sub Divisional Officer and Anr.

M/S. Pal Industries, Vs Raj. State Indu. Deve. and Inve. Corp andANR