Smt Mamta Sharma vs S S G Pareek Womwen Univerisity ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7724 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19662/2015

Smt Mamta Sharma W/o Shri Shailesh Sharma, Aged about 32
Years, R/o Village Dabdi (Rampura Dabdi), Tehsil Amer, District
Jaipur
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1. S S G Pareek Women University, Chomu through Principal
2. Secretary, S.A.G. Pareek College and associated Educational
Institutions, Banipark, Jaipur District Jaipur.
3. State of Rajasthan through District Magistrate, Jaipur District
Jaipur.
                                                                    ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. R. K. Daga, Adv. with
                                 Mr. Hitesh Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Kanta Prasad Sharma, Adv.
                                 Mr. Govind Purohit, Adv.
                                 Mr. Akshay Sharma, Adv.


      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
                                      Order

ORDER RESERVED ON                          ::                           24.11.2022


ORDER PRONOUNCED ON                         ::                          09.12.2022

This Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order

dated 08.09.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge No.20,

Headquarter Chomu, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby Civil Misc.

Appeal Nos.14/2013, 15/2013 were allowed & Civil Misc. Appeal

No.28/2013 was dismissed and against the order dated

10.10.2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) &

Metropolitan Magistrate No.25, Jaipur Metropolitan in application

for temporary injunction Nos.162/2010, 105/2011, 93/2013

(2 of 5) [CW-19662/2015]

whereby restrained the respondents for maintaining status quo

regarding the land in question and dismissed the application for

ad-interim mandatory injunction.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner

had filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents in

which petitioner had also filed an application for temporary

injunction. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that

respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed reply of temporary injunction

application before the trial court. Trial court vide order dated

27.10.2010 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner

regarding temporary injunction. Petitioner had preferred an appeal

on 03.11.2010 in between respondents had raised the illegal

construction, so, petitioner had filed an application under Order 41

Rule 27 CPC before the appellate court. Appellate court vide order

dated 31.05.2011 remanded the case to the trial court for

deciding afresh in the light of documents filed by the petitioner.

Meanwhile, petitioner had also filed an application for interim

mandatory injunction before the trial court for restoring the

previous position. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits

that petitioner had filed an application before the trial court for

restraining the respondents not to raise any construction in the

disputed way. Trial court vide order dated 10.10.2013 partly

allowed the application filed by the petitioner and restrained the

respondents to maintain the status quo and not to change the

situation. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that

respondents had filed an appeal of the said order and petitioner

had also filed an appeal against the dismissal of interim

mandatory injunction before the appellate court. Appellate court

(3 of 5) [CW-19662/2015]

vide order dated 08.09.2015 dismissed the appeal filed by the

petitioner and allowed the appeal filed by the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that impugned

order & judgment passed by learned court below are bad,

perverse and against the provisions of law. Learned counsel for

the petitioner also submits that learned appellate court wrongly

dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for

the petitioner also submits that learned appellate court wrongly

considered the fact that the sale deed made by the petitioner had

a road at 2 Kms. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits

that learned appellate court wrongly considered the fact that the

petitioner had alternative way as per the commissioner report.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that this fact was

not taken as a defence by the respondents. Learned counsel for

the petitioner also submits that due to construction of the

respondents, petitioner could not use his plot. Learned counsel for

the petitioner also submits that while deciding the appeal,

appellate court had decided the matter finally. So, order of the

appellate court be set aside and interim mandatory injunction be

issued in favour of the petitioner and restored the position of the

way that was exists at the time of filing of the suit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon

the following judgments : (1) Nizamuddin Vs. The Board of

Revenue & Ors. reported in 1991 (1) RLR 84; (2) State of

Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sohani Devi & Ors. reported in

1998 DNJ Raj. 790; (3) Ratan Lal Acharya Vs. Smt. Parwati

Bai & Ors. reported in 2000 DNJ Raj. 514 and (4) Mohd.

(4 of 5) [CW-19662/2015]

Mehtab Khan & Ors. Vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim & Ors. reported

in 2013 (2) Apex Court Judgments 78 (SC).

Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and

submitted that as per revenue record, there was no way in the

Khasra Nos.4138 and 4139. These lands belong to JDA and said

land was allotted to Shree Swaroop Govind Narayan Pareek for

Post Graduate Women College. Learned counsel for the

respondents also submits that petitioner had not claimed any

easementary right regarding way. Learned counsel for the

petitioner also submits that presently, JDA had developed the way.

So, learned appellate court rightly dismissed the appeal filed by

the petitioner. So, petition be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon

judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hero Vinoth

(Minor) Vs. Seshammal reported in (2006) 5 SCC 545.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the

respondents.

It is an admitted position that land of Khasra Nos.4138 and

4139 was vest in JDA and said land was allotted to Shree Swaroop

Govind Narayan Pareek for construction of Post Graduate Women

College and patta was issued in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2

on 11.05.2010. In revenue record, there was no way in Khasra

Nos.4138 and 4139. So, in my considered opinion, learned

appellate court rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

So, petition filed by the petitioner is being devoid of merits and

liable to be dismissed.

(5 of 5) [CW-19662/2015]

Therefore, the Civil Writ Petition stands dismissed.

All the pending applications also stand dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /55

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)