Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dilip Kumar vs The State Of Rajasthan on 3 January, 2022
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Rameshwar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 721/2021
Dilip Kumar S/o Shri Bheemraj, Aged About 62 Years, By Caste
Jain, Resident Of Sanchore, District Jalore. Director Bhujikative
Infra. Project Private Limited, Mumbai.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Local Self
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director Cum Deputy Secretary, Directorate, Local
Self Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Municipal Board, Sanchore, District Jalore Through Its
Executive Officer.
4. The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Sanchore, District
Jalore.
5. Shri Oswal Panch Mahajanan Sanchore, Through Its
Executive Trustee, Bhinmal, District Jalore.
6. Shri Gauri Shankar S/o Shri Govind Ram, By Caste
Maheshwari, R/o Old Bus Stand, Sanchore, District Jalore.
7. Shanti Devi W/o Jai Shankar, By Caste Maheshwari, R/o
Old Bus Stand, Indra Chowk, Sanchore, District Jalore.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari.
For Respondent(s)- : Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Adv. with
Caveator Mr. Rajat Dave
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS
Order
03/01/2022
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 07.09.2021 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
14715/2017.
(2 of 3) [SAW-721/2021]
The appellant-original petitioner has challenged the notices
published by Sanchore Municipal Board on 18.08.2017 and
22.08.2017 inviting objections from the members of the public
against the regularization of the possession and grant of pattas in
favour of persons mentioned in the notices. The case of the
petitioner was that he had applied for registration of patta in one
of the lands which was allegedly sold to him. When this was
refused, he had filed appeal before the authority under Section 77
of the Registration Act. The appeal has been dismissed.
Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a civil suit which is pending.
During the pendency of the civil proceedings, since the Municipal
Board had initiated steps for granting pattas in favour of some
other persons, the petitioner had challenged the notices.
The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment
dismissed the writ petition inter-alia on the grounds that the same
involves highly disputed question of facts, the petitioner has
already filed a civil suit with regard to non registration of the patta
of the land in question, which is pending and lastly, even the
Municipal Board has taken steps for issuance of pattas in favour of
persons who are having possession of the land, the same would
be a disputed question of fact which would normally be not
decided in a writ petition.
We are broadly in agreement with the view of the learned
Single Judge. The petitioner has already instituted civil
proceedings with respect to the non-registration of the patta in
relation to the land in question. The Municipal Board has invited
objection. In that view of the matter, the impugned notices are in
the nature of show-cause notices. As per settled law, the Court
does not ordinarily encourage litigation against show-cause
(3 of 3) [SAW-721/2021]
notices and lastly alternative remedy of civil suit which, in our
opinion, would be more appropriate proceedings, is also available,.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
All pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
13-jayesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
