Rajasthan High Court
M/S The Kota Cooperative ... vs Rajasthan State Industrial ... on 7 March, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12933/2021
M/s The Kota Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., New Dhan
Mandi Kota, Through Its General Manger, Kota (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited, (RIICO Ltd.) Industrial Area, Kota
Through Its Senior Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd. Kota.
2. Estate Officer, Rajasthan State Industrial Development
And Investment Corporation Limited, (RIICO Ltd)
Industrial Area, Kota.
3. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Bhandari with
Mr. Jitendra Mishra for
Mr. Ajeet Kumar Bhandari, Senior
Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
07/03/2022
This writ petition has been filed assailing the legality and
validity of the judgment dated 13.08.2021 passed by the
Additional District Judge No.1, Kota whereby, the civil misc. appeal
preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 06.07.2021
passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5(1) of the Rajasthan
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964
(for brevity, 'the Act of 1964'), has been dismissed.
(2 of 3) [CW-12933/2021]
The facts in brief are that the petitioner was allotted a Plot
no. B-16 in Industrial Area, Kota by the respondents vide lease
deed dated 08.02.1971 for running a rice mill. In violation of the
terms of the lease deed, the petitioner started non-industrial
activities (marriage garden) on the land in question for which a
notice dated 06.04.2016 was served upon it. On continuous
default, vide order dated 09.12.2016, lease deed was cancelled
and the petitioner was required to immediately handover
possession of the plot in question to the respondent no.1. On
failure to do so, proceedings under Section 5 of the Act of 1964
were initiated against the petitioner which culminated in favour of
the respondent no.1 vide order dated 06.07.2021 which has
unsuccessfully been challenged by it by way of a civil misc. appeal
before the learned District Court.
The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the appeal has been dismissed by the learned
Appellate Court observing that no proceeding for setting aside the
order dated 09.12.2016 canceling its lease deed, was subjudice
whereas, as a matter of fact, a writ petition no.6331/2020 in this
regard was already subjudice before this Court. He, therefore,
prays that the writ petition be allowed and the judgment
impugned be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents no.1 and 3
submitted that the order impugned does not suffer from any
illegality or perversity. He further submitted that in pursuance of
eviction proceedings, possession of the property in question has
already been taken on 26.08.2021. He, therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the writ petition.
(3 of 3) [CW-12933/2021]
Heard and considered.
It is established from the record as also admitted by the
petitioner that the land allotted to it for rice mill was put to non-
industrial activities, i.e., for running a marriage garden without
permission Allotment has already been cancelled vide order dated
09.12.2016, appeal whereagainst was also dismissed on
24.05.2019. Vide order dated 04.05.2020, the second appeal
preferred against the order of cancellation was also dismissed.
Thereafter, application dated 07.12.2020 filed by the petitioner for
restoration of allotment has also been dismissed. From the order
impugned, it is apparent that in view of the aforesaid admitted
facts, the learned Appellate Court has refused to interfere with the
order dated 06.07.2021 passed by the Estate Officer under
Section 5 (1) of the Act of 1964. True it is that the learned
Appellate Court has also observed that no proceeding against the
order of cancellation dated 09.12.2016 was pending; but, the
judgment is not based on this stray observation. As already held,
the order impugned dated 13.08.2021 has been passed by the
learned appellate Court after scanning the entire material on
record including the admitted facts. In view thereof, this court
does not find any illegality or perversity in the order dated
13.08.2021 warranting interference of this Court under its limited
supervisory jurisdiction.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
MADAN/44
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
