Dismissed

Rajendra Khatri v. Urban Improvement Trust

Rajasthan HC4 May 2023CSA/480/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding a civil suit to set aside rejection of residential plot allotment, the High Court held that the question of salary eligibility was purely factual. Relying on the concurrent findings below and noting the scheme's age, the Court found no substantial question of law arose.

What did the court decide?

No relief; second appeal dismissed with pending applications disposed of.

Rajendra Khatri Vs Urban Improvement Trust — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/013427]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 480/2011

¶4

Rajendra Khatri S/o Shri Hanumandas Khatri, aged 45 years, resident of LNT Road, Bikaner

¶5

Shishupal Singh, S/o Shri Arjunram, By Caste Choudhary, C/o Brij Ratan Acharya, Inside City Light Street, Joshiwada, Bikaner.

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, through its Secretary

¶9

Nagar Vikas Nyas, Bikaner, through its Chairman.

¶10

Smt. Sharda Devi W/o Sh. Rajendra Kapoor, Resident Of 3 E 143, Jainarayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.S. Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajeev Purohit

¶13

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶14

Order

¶15

04/05/2023

¶16

The present second appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2005 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Bikaner in Regular Appeal No.30/2002 whereby the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No.53/1998 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs was affirmed.

¶17

The facts of the matter are that applications were invited by the defendant-UIT Bikaner for allotment of some residential plots under a scheme and for the same, the categories according to the

[2023/RJJD/013427]

[CSA-480/2011]

(2 of 2)

income group were specified. One of the eligible category was of the State Government employees falling within the pay scale of Rs.801-1500 per month to be calculated on the basis of basic grade pay plus dearness allowance. The applications as preferred by all the three plaintiffs were rejected on the premise that they do not fall in the category as specified as they received the salary more than limit as prescribed. Both the Courts below reached to a specific finding that plaintiffs did not fall in the said category and therefore, the suit was dismissed.

¶22

In the opinion of this Court firstly, the said is a pure question of fact and the concurrent finding arrived by both the Courts below does not deserve any interference as the same does not involve any question of law. Secondly, the scheme in question pertained to the year 1994 and it is quite natural that the process would have been completed way back and the plots in question would have been allotted to the eligible applicants. No substantial relief now, in the year 2023, can even otherwise be granted.

¶23

In view of the above facts, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and the same is therefore, dismissed .

¶24

All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶25

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶26

5-AbhishekS/-

Rajendra Khatri v. Urban Improvement Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Khatri v. Urban Improvement Trust

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

Mahendra Kumar Singh Vs Shanti Devi Rajpurohit

Lalit Kumar and Anr. Vs Heera Lal

Gulam Rasul Khan Vs State and Anr.

Hemendra Joshi Vs Idrish Mohd.

Narendra Singh Vs Omprakash

Municipal Council, Pali Vs Abhishek Soni