Disposed

Mohd Zia Ur Rahim M Z Raheem v. Riico Andanr

Rajasthan HC6 Jan 2026CW/3153/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging cancellation of a RIICO plot allotment and rejection of review. The appeal before the Managing Director, RIICO appeared decided but no copy was supplied. The court directed expeditious disposal of any pending appeal within two months or supply of the appellate order, leaving remedies open.

What did the court decide?

Directions to decide the pending appeal within two months or supply the appellate order copy; liberty to challenge as per law.

Mohd Zia Ur Rahim M Z Raheem Vs Riico Andanr — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:88]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3153/2015

¶4

Mohd. Zia Ur Rahim M. Z Raheem Son Of Mohd. Abdurheem, By Caste- Musalman, 1617, Khajdoka Rasta, Indira Market, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd Riico Through Its Managing Di, Udyog Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Sr. Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd Rii, Jaipur Rural, 22 Godown Industrial Area, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ashish Sharma Upadhyay For Respondent(s) :

¶11

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

06/01/2026

¶14

By passing the order dated 04.11.2011, the respondents have cancelled the allotment of plot bearing No.C-90 admeasuring 184.50 sq. meter situated at Kukas.

¶15

Counsel submits that a review petition was submitted against the aforesaid impugned order, however, the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 08.01.2015.

¶16

Counsel submits that aggrieved by both the aforesaid impugned orders, an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, i.e., Managing Director, RIICO on 03.02.2015. Counsel submits that as per the information received

[2026:RJ-JP:88]

[CW-3153/2015]

(2 of 2)

by the petitioner, the said appeal has been decided, but a copy of the order has not been supplied to the petitioner.

¶21

This Court finds no substance in such argument of the petitioner that the appeal of the petitioner has been decided and copy of the same has not been supplied to the petitioner.

¶22

It appears that the appeal submitted by the petitioner is still lying pending for adjudication on its merits and if it is pending before the Appellate Authority, it is expected from the Appellate Authority to make all possible endeavours to deciding the pending appeal (if any) expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶23

In case, the appeal has already been decided by the Appellate Authority, then the respondents are directed to supply a copy of the impugned order to the petitioner and the petitioner would be at liberty to avail remedies available to him as per law for the purpose of challenging the validity of the order, if any, passed against the petitioner.

¶24

With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶25

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶26

Aayush Sharma /3

Mohd Zia Ur Rahim M Z Raheem v. Riico Andanr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Zia Ur Rahim M Z Raheem v. Riico Andanr

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

Arjun Ram Vyas S/O Shri Indra Chand Ji Vyas Vs the Assistant Commissioner (First), Devasthan Department

Moti Ram S/O Shri Gutta Ram by Caste Jat Vs Union of India

Harphool S/O Chotu Ram by Caste Jat Vs Union of India

Smt. Krishna Kanwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Badrilal S/O Mathuralal Vs State of Rajasthan

Kumawat Omprakash Kanhaiyalal Son of Shri Kanhaiyalal Vs Central Board of Secondary Education