Dismissed

Om Prakash Arora v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 May 2024CW/7030/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged notices directing removal of construction in the setback area. Having purchased adjoining plots and applied for their unification, the High Court directed the respondents to decide the application within three months and refrain from coercive action pending the decision.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondents to decide pending application for unification and conversion of plots within three months and not take any coercive action until then.

Om Prakash Arora Vs State of Rajasthan — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2024)

(1 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:22639]

[CW-7030/2024]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7030/2024

¶6

Om Prakash Arora S/o Shri Shehjada Ram, Aged About 70 Years.

¶7

Sudesh Rani W/o Shri Om Prakash Arora, Aged About 68 Years.

¶8

Sharad Arora S/o Shri Om Prakash Arora, Aged About 45 Years.

¶9

Shekhar Arora S/o Shri Om Prakash Arora, Aged About 43 Years. All permanent residents of 79-B, Block, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

¶10

----Petitioners Versus

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur - 302015 (Raj.).

¶12

The Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeet Purohit. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dron Kaushik.

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order

¶16

20/05/2024

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed against the notices dated 11.10.2023 and 08.04.2024 directing the petitioners to immediately remove the illegal construction made by them in the setback area of the plot in question.

¶19

Briefly noted facts in the case are that the petitioners are having a piece of land situated at Chak 5 E Chhoti, Murabba No.24 in District Sri Ganganagar. On the subject piece of land, the petitioners have constructed a Marriage Palace in the name of ‘Orbit Inn Resorts’. The Marriage Palace was constructed by the petitioners after obtaining due permission from the respondents. The respondents, after inspecting the premises of the petitioners,

[2024:RJ-JD:22639]

[CW-7030/2024]

(2 of 3)

issued notices dated 11.10.2023 and 08.04.2024 vide which, the petitioners were directed to remove the illegal construction undertaken by them in the setback area of the plot. Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the alleged illegal construction has been undertaken by the petitioners on the rear part of their building and on the rear part of the plot, the petitioners have purchased five more plots adjoining to the their land, therefore, the objection of the respondents with respect to the construction undertaken on the setback area will no more survive. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have already filed an application for unification and conversion of the recently purchased five plots along with the main plot over which the Marriage Palace has been constructed. He, therefore, prays that the respondents may be directed to decide the pending application of the petitioners for unification and conversion of the plots at the earliest and till then, the respondents may be directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioners.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the factual submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that the application filed by the petitioners for unification and conversion of the recently purchased plots will be taken into consideration and decided at the earliest in accordance with law.

¶26

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

¶27

Some construction of Marriage Palace on the subject piece of land owned by the petitioners was found to be in violation of the

[2024:RJ-JD:22639]

[CW-7030/2024]

(3 of 3)

Rules on account of the fact that the petitioners raised the construction in the setback area on the rear part of their plot. Since, the objection raised by the respondents was found to be of some credence, therefore, the petitioners purchased five more plots adjoining to their land so the objection raised by the respondents can very well be met out. After purchase of these five plots, the petitioners have moved an application for conversion and unification of those plots along with the main plot. The step taken by the petitioners to meet the contingency will resolve the issue with respect to raising of the construction by the petitioners in the setback area.

¶32

In the circumstances, ends of justice will be met, if the respondents are directed to decide pending application of the petitioner for unification and conversion of the plots recently purchased by the petitioners at the earliest.

¶33

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed with a direction to the respondents to decide the pending application of the petitioners for unification and conversion of the plots recently purchased by the petitioners at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶34

It is ordered that till the pending application filed by the petitioners is decided, the respondents will not take any coercive action against the petitioners.

¶35

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶36

20-AnilSingh/-

Om Prakash Arora v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Arora v. State of Rajasthan

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

District Chief Medical Officer Vs Sarita Vaishnav

Sohan Singh @ Soni @ Sonu Vs State of Rajasthan

Heeraram Vs State of Rajasthan

Narayan Lal Sagar Vs Raj. Bhoodan Yagna Board and Ors.

Devikot Gaushala Vs State of Rajasthan

Arvind Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan