Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ved Bhushan vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 June, 2022
Bench: Madan Gopal Judge)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8268/2022
Ved Bhushan S/o Tarraki Lal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o House
No. 70-71, Shyam Singh Colony, Hanumangarh Junction, District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Department Of
Local Self, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Municipal Council Hanumangarh, Through Its
Commissioner, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kunal Upadhyay for Mr. Sunil
Beniwal, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS(VACATION JUDGE)
Order
08/06/2022
By way of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed to
restrain the respondents from removal or demolish the house of
the petitioner being plot No.145 of Sector 11 of the Hunumangarh
Junction and has also challenged the auction letter dated
09.05.2022 issued by Municipal Council, Hanumangarh published
in daily newspaper dated 13.05.2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the
Mandi Development Committee prepared the plan for setup of the
residential colony at Hanumangarh Junction and thereafter, the
father of the petitioner late Sh. Tarraki Lal and his colleague Sh.
Mohan Lal have participated in the auction proceedings of the plot
in question. The said plot was allotted and the allotment amount
(2 of 3) [CW-8268/2022]
of Rs.813/- was deposited through challans, however, the Mandi
Development Committee sent a notice to the allottees on
2.5.1986 for depositing the remaining amount of the auction price
uptill 30.6.1986. It is submitted that father of the petitioner
submitted an application on 27.6.1986 to the Secretary of
Committee for determination of the amount and issuance of
challan, but of no avail. Thereafter, on 17.12.1998, the Addl.
Collector issued reminder notice for depositing the due amount. In
response thereto, the father of the petitioner again submitted
applications on 5.2.1999 and then on 15.1.2003 for issuance of
challan. Ultimately, on 29.9.2007, the allottee Sh. Tarraki Lal has
expired and the respondent issued the impugned notice on
4.2.20022 in the name of Sh. Tarraki Lal (a dead person) giving
15 days to deposit the auction amount, failing which, possession
of the plot shall be handed over. Thereafter, on 9.5.2022, the
auction notice was issued with regard to the plot in question fixing
the date for auction as 8.6.2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in such
circumstances, if the respondents are permitted to conduct the
auction proceedings today then the very purpose of filing the
present writ petition would be frustrated as the notice dated
4.2.2022 has been issued against dead person.
Mr. Kunal Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents-caveator submits that over the disputed plot, the
petitioner is not having possession. It is submitted that some
third person was doing commercial activities over the disputed
plot and, therefore, possession over the plot in question has
already been taken over by the respondents. It is also submitted
that earlier also the petitioner has preferred SBCWP
(3 of 3) [CW-8268/2022]
No.4961/2022 and the same was got dismissed as withdrawn
without seeking liberty to file fresh. In support of his contention,
learned counsel has relied upon the judgment dated 25.04.2022
passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.84/2022 by this Court.
Matter requires consideration.
Mr. Kunal Upadhyay on behalf of Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned
AAG appears for the respondents-caveator, therefore, service is
complete.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to supply a
copy of memo of writ petition to Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned AAG.
Learned counsel for the respondent prays for time to file
reply.
List this matter on 28.06.2022.
Till then, the status quo as it exists today with regard to plot
in question shall be maintained by both the parties.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS(VACATION JUDGE)),J
125-Bharti/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
