Shree Ram Colony B Vikas Samiti vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7430 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16978/2019
Shree Ram Colony B Vikas Samiti
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan
                                                                ----Respondent

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 336/2019 Jyoti Sejwani W/o Nanak Chand Sejwani

----Petitioner Versus The Rajasthan Housing Board

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13563/2019 Jyoti Sejwani Wife Of Nanak Chand Sejwani

----Petitioner Versus The Rajasthan Housing Board

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15576/2019 Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur

----Petitioner Versus Jaipur Development Authority

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ashish Sharma Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajat Ranjan For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Adv. General assisted by Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma, Mr. Darsh Pareek, Mr. Pranav Bansali Mr. V. Lodha, Sr. Adv. with Jai Lodha Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shovit Jhajharia Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rachit Sharma Mr. S.S. Raghav, AAG Mr. Imran Khan, Addl. G.C.

Mr. M.K. Dhakad for Mr. R.A. Katta Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma

(2 of 3) [CW-16978/2019]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

09/12/2021

1. An urgent request has been made for these bunches of writ

petitions.

2. It is contended by learned Advocate General that an interim

order was passed by the Court restraining the opposite parties

from changing status quo as was existing on that date. It is

argued that the members who are in unlawful possession, have

started construction and are changing the status which is existing.

3. To this, counsel for the petitioner contends that no new

construction has been or is being raised. The question involved

here pertains to a land which was acquired by Rajasthan Housing

Board way back in the year 1991. Petitioners have claimed the

possession on the ground that the land was sold to the

cooperative society by the Khatedar way back in the year 1981 by

an agreement and society had issued pattas in favour of the

persons, who are now in possession. It is also contended that

petitioners have won upto the Supreme Court.

4. Contentions of learned Advocate General is that there was no

agreement way back in the year 1981, as there was an audit

report of the year 1979-82 and no name of scheme is there in the

audit report. It is further contended that petitioners are land

grabbers and no right can be accrued in their favour.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. The issues involved in these cases require deliberation and

proper hearing. However, to ensure that no new construction is

raised, this Court deems it proper to direct the Rajasthan Housing

Board to take possession of the construction material including,

(3 of 3) [CW-16978/2019]

bajri, cement, stones, bricks and iron rods from the site after

making videography of the same.

7. This order is passed to ensure that no new construction are

made as the main plea of the learned Advocate General is that

property was acquired by the Rajasthan Housing Board and fraud

has been played upon the Court in the earlier proceedings and in

the present proceedings also.

8. List these matters on 10.01.2022, as a first case.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ARTI SHARMA /186-189

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)