Dismissed

U.I.T., Bhilwara v. Mandir Shree Charbhuja Trust, Bhilwara

Rajasthan HC7 Feb 2024CR/206/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan rejected a civil revision petition seeking to quash an order upholding the jurisdiction of a civil court in a suit for permanent injunction. The Court held that while land acquisition awards are executable by specific officers, a civil court has jurisdiction to pass injunctions restraining auctioning until such awards are complied with.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; impugned order upholding jurisdiction of the Civil Court confirmed.

U.I.T., Bhilwara Vs Mandir Shree Charbhuja… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:6461]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 206/2010

¶4

Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara, Through its Officer Incharge Sh. Kamal Nayan Verma S/o Sh. Bhanwar Lal Ji, By Caste Verma, Age 58 years. Presently posted as Tehsildar, U.I.T., Bhilwara.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mandir Shree Charbhuja Trust, Subhash Nagar, [Malaan], Bhilwara through its President Shankar Das Beragi.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶11

Order

¶12

07/02/2024

¶13

The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 11.08.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhilwara (Raj.) in Civil Original Suit No.60/2004 whereby while deciding issue No.2 as a preliminary issue, the Court held the suit to be maintainable before a civil Court.

¶14

The facts of the case are as under:

¶15

(i). A suit for permanent injunction was preferred on behalf of the plaintiff Charbhuja Trust with the following prayers:-

¶16

“1. okn oknh Lohdkj Qjekdj LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dh fMØh cgd oknh fo:) izfroknh bl vk'k; dh ikfjr dh tkos fd jekfogkj foLrkj vkoklh; ;kstuk esa fo|eku Hkw&[kaMksa dh fuykeh dh dk;Zokgh ls iwoZ izfroknh oknh dks mDr ;kstuk esa vokMZ ds vuqlkj 15 izUnzg izfr'kr Hkw&Hkkx@Hkw&[kaM dk vkoaVu djus i'pkr gh mDr ;kstuk esa Hkw&[kaMksa dh fuykeh dh dk;Zokgh izfroknh djsA

[2024:RJ-JD:6461]

[CR-206/2010]

(2 of 5)

fd vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k tks fgrizn oknh gks] ekuuh; U;k;ky; iznku djkosaA“

¶21

The case of the plaintiff was that after completion of the land acquisition proceedings, vide award dated 31.01.2001, the UIT, Bhilwara was directed to hand over possession of 15% of the developed land to the Charbhuja Trust in lieu of the acquired land. The defendant UIT was under an obligation to hand over the said 15% of land but without satisfying the said award, the UIT proceeded on to auction all the plots of the said land. The suit in question was therefore, preferred by the plaintiff with a prayer to restrain the UIT, Bhilwara from auctioning the same without satisfying the award first.

¶22

A written statement was filed by the defendant Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara wherein an objection regarding the maintainability of the suit before the Civil Court was raised and it was submitted that as the proceedings pertain to land acquisition, the Civil Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

¶23

Issue no.2 was framed by the Court on the said objection of the defendant which reads as under:-

¶24

“2. vk;k okn bl U;k;ky; ds Jo.kk ;ksX; ugha gksus ls fujLruh; gSA“

¶25

The learned trial Court proceeded on to decide issue No.2 as a preliminary issue and vide order impugned, held that no land acquisition proceedings were under challenge in the present suit. The Court held that the plaintiff had not challenged the award in question but had prayed only for satisfaction/compliance of the

[2024:RJ-JD:6461]

[CR-206/2010]

(3 of 5)

award and hence, the suit was very well maintainable before the civil Court.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relief as prayed for in the present suit definitely arose out of the land acquisition proceedings and as is the settled proposition of law, the proceedings pertaining to land acquisition cannot be entertained by a Civil Court. He further submitted that even if the plaintiff was aggrieved of the award dated 31.01.2001, in terms of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1894), an appeal ought to have been laid and therefore also, the suit before the Civil Court was not maintainable. He submitted that even on merits, the plaintiff had no case as the amount of compensation in lieu of the land acquired had already been deposited by the defendant UIT, Bhilwara with the Land Acquisition Officer.

¶31

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that firstly, the award in question was not under challenge in the present suit and it was a simplicitor suit for permanent injunction with a relief to restrain the defendant UIT from auctioning the land in question. He further submitted that even if it is ultimately found that the compensation amount in lieu of the land had already been deposited and the plaintiff is not entitled to 15% of the developed land, the same would render the suit infructuous or the suit would be dismissed but the said reason cannot make the suit not maintainable.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

[2024:RJ-JD:6461]

[CR-206/2010]

(4 of 5)

What can be summed up from the facts of the case is that a piece of land was acquired by the UIT, Bhilwara for the purposes of development of a residential colony. The said land was the khatedari land of the temple Charbhuja Nath and vide award dated 31.01.2001 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the temple Charbhuja Nath was held entitled to 15% of developed land in lieu of the acquired land. The said award was not satisfied and the UIT, Bhilwara proceeded on to auction the plots of the colony on the land in question. Therefore, the present suit for permanent injunction was preferred by the Charbhuja Trust.

¶37

A bare perusal of the prayer as made makes it clear that the relief prayed for is that the UIT, Bhilwara be restrained from auctioning the plots without first satisfying the award in question. The same can by no stretch of imagination be termed to be a challenge to any award rather it is to ensure the compliance of the award. Although this Court is of the opinion that the Act of 1894 specifically provides that a land acquisition award is equivalent to a decree and if a party seeks the execution of any award passed in land acquisition proceedings, it ought to prefer execution proceedings but then, it is also clear that the relief for injunction has been prayed for in the present suit which evidently cannot be granted by a Land Acquisition Officer.

¶38

The observation of the learned trial Court to the extent that the relief prayed for in the suit is for grant of the land in terms of the award, is incorrect and erroneous on the face of it. The relief prayed for in the suit is not for execution of the award but is for permanent injunction.

[2024:RJ-JD:6461]

[CR-206/2010]

(5 of 5)

In the specific opinion of this Court, the relief of injunction, if any, to restrain the defendant UIT, Bhilwara can be granted only by a Civil Court and hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the clear view that the suit in question would definitely be maintainable before a Civil Court.

¶43

The order impugned dated 11.08.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhilwara (Raj.) therefore, does not deserve any interference and the revision petition is hence, dismissed .

¶44

All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of .

¶45

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶46

4-KashishS/-

U.I.T., Bhilwara v. Mandir Shree Charbhuja Trust, Bhilwara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.I.T., Bhilwara v. Mandir Shree Charbhuja Trust, Bhilwara

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

Smt. Nazma and Ors. Vs Naval Kishore Sharma and Ors.

Champa Kanwar and Anr. Vs Heera Lal and Ors.

Jaga Ram and Ors. Vs Pappu Ram and Ors.

Smt.Basanti Devi and Ors. Vs Lrs.of Balkishan

Sita Devi Vs Chunni Lal and Ors.

Savitri Devi Vs United India Insurance Company Limited