Allowed

Rukaiya Bano v. Commissioner

Rajasthan HC8 May 2024CW/1541/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order failing to decide her construction permission application. The court directed the respondents to decide the pending application within one month and restrained them from taking coercive action against the petitioner's construction activities until then.

What did the court decide?

Directive to decide construction permission application within one month; restraint on coercive action against petitioner's construction activities.

Rukaiya Bano Vs Commissioner — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:20641]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1541/2024

¶4

Rukaiya Bano W/o Mohd. Sadiq, Aged About 77 Years, B/cMuslim, R/o Peerzaado Ka Mohalla, Delhi Darvazo, A Road, Nagaur, Tehsil And District- Nagaur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Commissioner, Municipal Council, Nagaur.

¶8

Chairman, Municipal Council, Nagaur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vasu Dev Gaur
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Jayant Joshi

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order

¶12

08/05/2024

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed with the following

¶15

prayers:

¶16

“1. That the impugned order dated 09.01.2024 (Annex.8) passed by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶17

That the respondents may kindly be refrained from interfering with peaceful possession of the petitioner as well as be refrained from interfering with the construction work that may be undertaken by the petitioner at the property in question.”

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 19.09.2023, the petitioner has applied for permission to undertake the construction on the plot in question. Learned counsel submits that despite there being a provision in the shape of Section 194 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, the requisite application for permission has not been decided, although the authorities were

[2024:RJ-JD:20641]

[CW-1541/2024]

(2 of 2)

under an obligation to decide the same within a period of two months. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will be satisfied, if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the application for construction permission within a stipulated period of time and till that time, the property in question shall not be seized by the respondents.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. 5. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner for construction permission dated 19.09.2023 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law and till the application is decided, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner on the construction activities undertaken by him on the subject piece of land.

¶24

Stay petition as well as other pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶25

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶26

C-2-Arun P/-

Rukaiya Bano v. Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukaiya Bano v. Commissioner

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

Ratanlal Vs Neetu Kanwar

Ratisha Saboo Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ratisha Saboo Vs the State of Rajasthan

Surendra Singh Naruka Vs State of Rajasthan

Mayank Chawra Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramkaran Vs State of Rajasthan