Allowed

Rajiv Mehrishi v. Bhikam Chand and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 Feb 2024CR/209/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed multiple civil revision petitions challenging an impugned order in which a trial court attached JDA offices and ordered civil imprisonment. The Court set aside the order, noting the court failed to consider documents regarding land acquisition before passing judgment under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 14.12.2006 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh adjudication after taking relevant documents on record.

Rajiv Mehrishi Vs Bhikam Chand and Ors. — Execution and Attachment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:5709]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 207/2006

¶4

Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary, Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Bhikam Chand S/o Shri Jai Narayan Sharma

¶8

Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Bhikam Chand Sharma, Through Power Of Attorney Hoder Shri Beni Das Agarwal S/o Shri Dwarka Das Agarwal R/o Plot No. 9,, Jamna Lal Bajaj Marg, C-Scehem Jaipur

¶9

Vijay Narayan S/o Shir Govind Narayan

¶10

Narayan Lal S/o Shri Govind Narayan

¶11

Kishan Lal S/o Shri Govind Narayan

¶12

Resident of House No.3150, Jailal Munshi Ka Rasta, Chowkri Purani Basti, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶13

Rajiv Mehrishi, the then Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Indira circle, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur

¶14

Sh. Jagroop Singh Yadav, the then Deputy Housing Commissioner, Lal Kothi Zone, Jaipur Development Authority, Indira Circle, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

Connected With

¶17

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 209/2006

¶18

Rajiv Mehrishi S/o Shri Kamlakant Mehrishi, R/o A 51, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur The Then Commissioner Jda, Jaipur

¶19

----Petitioner

¶20

Versus

¶21

Bhikam Chand S/o Shri Jai Narayan Sharma

¶22

Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Bhikam Chand Sharma, Through Power Of Attorney Hoder Shri Beni Das Agarwal S/o Shri Dwarka Das Agarwal R/o Plot No. 9,, Jamna Lal Bajaj Marg, C-Scehem Jaipur

¶23

Vijay Narayan S/o Shir Govind Narayan Since Dead, Through Legal Heirs Details Not Konws R/o H.no, 3150, Jai Lal Munshi Ka Rasta, Chowkri Purani Basti, Jaipur

¶24

Narayan Lal S/o Shri Govind Narayan, R/o H.no. 3150 Jai

(2 of 7)

[2024:RJ-JP:5709]

[CR-207/2006]

Lal Mushi Ka Rasta, Chowkri Purani Basti, Jaipur

¶29

Kishan Lal S/o Shri Govind Narayan Since Dead Through Legal Heir

¶30

5/1. Dwarka Das Khandaka S/o Late Shri Kishan Lal R/o H.No.3150, Jai Lal Muni Ka Rasta, Chowkri Purani Basti, Jaipur

¶31

Jaipur Development Authority Through Its Secretary, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur

¶32

Abhay Kumar S/o Shri Arimardan Singh, At Present Working As Spd, Dpip, Yojna Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur

¶33

Jagroop Singh Yadav S/o Shri D.r. Yadav, At Present Working As Additional Director Iecsio, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur

¶34

----Respondents

¶35

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 210/2006

¶36

Abhay Kumar S/o Shri Arimardan Singh, At Present Working As Spd, Dpip, Yojna Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur

¶37

Jagroop Singh Yadav S/o Shri D.r. Yadav, At Present Working As Additional Director Iecsio, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur

¶38

----Petitioners

¶39

Versus

¶40

Bhikam Chand S/o Shri Narayan Sharma

¶41

Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Bhikam Chand Sharma, Through Power Of Attorney Hoder Shri Beni Das Agarwal S/o Shri Dwarka Das Agarwal R/o Plot No. 9,, Jamna Lal Bajaj Marg, C-Scehem Jaipur

¶42

Vijay Narayan S/o Govind Narayan Since Dead Through Legal Heirs Details Not Known, R/o H.no. 3150, Jai Lal Munsi Ka Rasta Chowkri Purani Basti, Jaipur

¶43

Narayan Lal S/o Govind Narayan, R/o H.no. 3150 Jai Lal Munsi Ka Rasta , Chowkri Purani Basti, Jaipur

¶44

Kishan Lal S/o Shri Govind Narayan Since Dead Through Legal Heir

¶45

5/1. Dwarka Das Khandaka S/o Late Shri Kishan Lal R/o H.No.3150, Jai Lal Muni Ka Rasta, Chowkri Purani Basti, Jaipur

¶46

Jaipur Development Authority Through Its Secretary J.l.n.

[2024:RJ-JP:5709]

[CR-207/2006]

(3 of 7)

Marg, Jaipur

Shri Rajiv Mahershi The Then Commissioner , Jda, Jaipur

¶52

----Respondents

¶53

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 8/2007

¶54

The Rajasthan State Cooperative Bank Ltd. through its Managing Director, DC-1 Lalkothi Scheme, Tonk Road, Jaipur

¶55

----Petitioner

¶56

Versus

¶57

Jaipur Development Authority, Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur through its Commissioner.

¶58

Bhikam Chand S/o Shri Jai Narayan Sharma

¶59

Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Bhikam Chand Sharma, Through Power Of Attorney Hoder Shri Beni Das Agarwal S/o Shri Dwarka Das Agarwal R/o Plot No. 9,, Jamna Lal Bajaj Marg, C-Scehem Jaipur

¶60

Vijay Narayan S/o Shir Govind Narayan

¶61

Narayan Lal S/o Govind Narayan, R/o H.no. 3150 Jai Lal Munsi Ka Rasta , Chowkri Purani Basti, Jaipur

¶62

Rajiv Mehrishi, the then Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Indira circle, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur

¶63

Sh. Jagroop Singh Yadav, the then Deputy Housing Commissioner, Lal Kothi Zone, Jaipur Development Authority, Indira Circle, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur

¶64

----Respondent

¶65

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Amit Kuri, Adv. with Mr. Dharma Ram for JDA
	Mr. A. K. Sharma, Senior Counsel with
	Mr. Madhav Dadhich, Adv. in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 209/2006
	Mr. Sarthak Rastogi, Adv. in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 210/2006
	Mr. S. C. Mittal, Adv. in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 8/2007
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. G. P. Sharma, Adv. Mr. M. C. Gupta, Adv.

¶66

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

05/02/2024

DATE OF JUDGMENT

(4 of 7)

[2024:RJ-JP:5709]

[CR-207/2006]

Since, these revision petitions have arisen out of the common order passed by the trial court, therefore, they are being decided together by this common order.

¶74

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that Prem Devi filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction in respect of her possession over Government land situated in Khasra No.417 village Bhojpura, Jaipur. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submit that Prem Devi in her suit admitted the fact that disputed land was acquired by the Competent Authority. So, there was no need for the petitioners to prove the acquisition proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submit that the said suit was inadvertently decreed ex-parte. While decreeing the suit ex-parte, the trial court ordered that suit filed by the Prem Devi was decreed against the respondents and also observed that she should not be evicted unlawfully. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submit that on account of encroachment over the Government Land, JDA issued notice under Section 72 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act. Prem Devi sold the land in question to Bhikam Chand and Ramesh Chand by way of purported agreement to sell. One Beni Das Agrawal represented Sh. Ramesh Chand as his power of attorney holder but encroacher not filed reply to the notice issued by the Competent Authority. As per the Jaipur Development Authority Act, civil proceeding is barred against acquisition of land. Instead of filing appeal before the JDA Tribunal, the respondents preferred the Execution Application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate

[CR-207/2006]

[2024:RJ-JP:5709]

(5 of 7)

No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur. In Execution Application, civil imprisonment was never prayed, but court below exceeded its jurisdiction. Having no jurisdiction regarding maintainability of the application, learned court below ordered for attachment of the rooms of the Commissioner JDA, the Secretary JDA and the Deputy Commissioner Lal Kothi zone Jaipur. The court below also ordered for civil imprisonment of the petitioner-Rajiv Mehrishi, Sh. Abhay Kumar and Sh. Jagroop Singh Yadav. The court below also ordered for issuance of notice to the then Commissioner, Secretary and Deputy Commissioner of the zone for initiating the contempt proceeding against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submit that before passing the order regarding civil imprisonment etc., petitioners were not heard. The civil court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in relation to the land, which had already been acquired. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submit that inadvertently documents regarding acquisition were not filed before court below. So, matter be remanded back to the civil court for fresh adjudication after taking relevant documents on record.

¶79

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 8/2007 -Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that part of the acquired land was allotted by JDA to the petitioner and petitioner had deposited the required money and lease deed was also executed in favour of the petitioner but learned court below without hearing the petitioner, had passed the order for demolition of the construction raised by the petitioner on disputed land. So, without hearing the petitioner, the order dated 14.12.2006 could not be passed. So, petition filed by the petitioner be allowed.

(6 of 7)

[2024:RJ-JP:5709]

[CR-207/2006]

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Narayan Prasad Agrawal Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 643/2002 decided on 29.04.2003 and (2) Rohit Singh Vs. Vishambhar Dayal Shukla in Civil Revision Petition No.57/13 decided on 04.02.2014 .

¶84

Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the civil court rightly passed the order dated 14.12.2006. So, revision petition be dismissed.

¶85

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

¶86

It is an admitted position that the trial court while deciding the application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC had not considered the documents regarding acquisition of the disputed land. Inadvertently these documents were not placed before the trial court. So, in my considered opinion, without considering these documents, the order dated 14.12.2006 passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside.

¶87

Accordingly, these revision petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The order dated 14.12.2006 passed by the trial court is set aside.

¶88

Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 11.03.2024 and trial court is directed to decide the respondents’ application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC afresh after taking the relevant documents on record and giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, in accordance with law.

(7 of 7)

[2024:RJ-JP:5709]

[CR-207/2006]

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

¶93

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶94

Jatin/Tahir/2-5

Rajiv Mehrishi v. Bhikam Chand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Mehrishi v. Bhikam Chand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Padamchand S/O Late Shri Shantilal, Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Jahid S/O Aarif Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Bhagwani Devi W/O Late Shri Nanuram Vs Dara Singh S/O Shri Sawalram

Irshad Ali @ Salim Abba S/O Late Shri Irfan Ali Vs State of Rajasthan

Om Prakash Son of Shri Likharam Vs State of Rajasthan

J D a Vs Bhikam Chand and Ors.