Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Laxman Meena vs Ghanshyam Meena ... on 1 December, 2023
Bench: Arun Bhansali, Rajendra Prakash Soni
[2023:RJ-JD:41568-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 838/2023
Laxman Meena S/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal Meena, Aged About 33
Years, Village - Nimoda, Tehsil - Sarada, District - Udaipur (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ghanshyam Meena S/o Sh. Narayan Meena, Aged About
48 Years, Resident Of Village Bandha, Tehsil Sawai
Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Urban Development And Housing, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur.
3. Urban Improvement Trust (U.i.t.), Through Its Secretary,
Udaipur (Raj.).
4. Garce Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director Shanti Lal
Mehta S/o Kanhaiya Lal Mehta, Having Its Registered
Office At 103-104, Shubh Apartment, 99-L Road,
Bhopalpura, Udaipur
5. Smt. Champa Devi W/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal Meena,
Village Nimoda, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur (Raj.).
6. Khemraj Meena S/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal Meena, Village
Nimoda, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur (Raj.).
7. Kailash Meena S/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal Meena, Village
Nimoda, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur (Raj.).
8. Nirma @ Niru D/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal Meena, Village
Nimoda, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur (Raj.).
9. Smt. Laali Devi D/o Late Sh. Bhaira Ji, M/o Late Shankar
Lal Meena, Village Nimoda, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur
(Raj.).
10. Sub Registrar - I, Udaipur.
11. Sub Registrar - Ii, Udaipur.
12. Sub Registrar, Badgaon, Udaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 892/2023
Grace Colonizers Private Limited, Through Its Director Shanti Lal
Mehta S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Mehta Aged About 58 Years, Having
Its Registered Office At 103/104, Shubh Apartment, 99 L Road,
Bhopalpura, District Udaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ghanshyam Meena S/o Sh. Narayan Meena, Aged About
48 Years, R/o Village Bandha, Tehsil Sawai Madhopur,
District- Sawai Madhopur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Urban Development And Housing, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur.
3. Urban Improvement Trust (U.i.t.), Through Its Secretary,
Udaipur (Raj.).
4. Smt. Champa Devi W/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal Meena, R/o
(Downloaded on 01/12/2023 at 08:56:03 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:41568-DB] (2 of 8) [SAW-838/2023]
Village - Nimoda, Tehsil - Sarada, District - Udaipur
(Raj.).
5. Khemraj Meena S/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal Meena, R/o
Village - Nimoda, Tehsil - Sarada, District - Udaipur
(Raj.).
6. Laxman Meena S/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal Meena, R/o
Village - Nimoda, Tehsil - Sarada, District - Udaipur
(Raj.).
7. Kailash Meena S/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal Meena, R/o
Village - Nimoda, Tehsil - Sarada, District - Udaipur
(Raj.).
8. Nirma Alias Niru D/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal Meena, R/o
Village - Nimoda, Tehsil - Sarada, District - Udaipur
(Raj.).
9. Smt. Laali Devi D/o Late Sh. Bhaira Ji D/o Late Shankar
Lal Meena, R/o Village - Nimoda, Tehsil - Sarada, District
- Udaipur (Raj.).
10. Sub Registrar-I, Udaipur.
11. Sub Registrar-Ii, Udaipur
12. Sub Registrar, Badgaon, Udaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 906/2023
Urban Improvement Trust (U.i.t.), Through Its Secretary,
Udaipur (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ghanshyam Meena S/o Sh. Narayan Meena, Aged About
48 Years, R/o Village Bandha, Tehsil Sawai Madhopur,
District Sawai Madhopur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department
Of Urban Development And Housing, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur.
3. Grace Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director,
Havinglts Registered Office At 103/104, Shubh
Apartment, 99 L Road Bhopalpura, Udaipur.
4. Smt. Champa Devi W/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal Meena, R/
o Village Nimoda, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur (Raj.).
5. Khemraj Meena S/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal Meena, R/o
Village Nimoda, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur (Raj.).
6. Laxman Meena S/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal Meena, R/o
Village Nimoda, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur (Raj.).
7. Kailash Meena S/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal Meena, R/o
Village Nimoda, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur (Raj.).
8. Nirma @ Niru D/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal Meena, R/o
Village Nimoda, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur (Raj.)
9. Smt. Laali Devi D/o Late. Sh. Bhaira Ji, R/o Village
Nimoda, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur (Raj.)
10. Sub Registrar-I, Udaipur
11. Sub Registrar-Ii, Udaipur
(Downloaded on 01/12/2023 at 08:56:03 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:41568-DB] (3 of 8) [SAW-838/2023]
12. Sub Registrar, Badgaon, Udaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 992/2023
Ghanshyam Meena S/o Sh. Narayan Meena, Aged About 48
Years, R/o Village Bandha, Tehsil Sawai Madhopur, District-
Sawai Madhopur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department
Of Urban Development And Housing, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur.
2. Urban Improvement Trust (U.i.t), Through Its Secretary,
Udaipur (Raj.)
3. Grace Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director, Having
Its Registered Office At 103/104, Shubh Apartment, 99-
L Road, Bhopalpura, Udaipur (Raj.)
4. Smt. Champa Devi W/o Late. Sh. Shankar Lal Meena,
Village - Nimoda, Tehsil - Sarada, District- Udaipur
(Raj.)
5. Khemraj Meena S/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal Meena, Village
- Nimoda, Tehsil - Sarada, District- Udaipur (Raj.)
6. Laxman Meena S/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal Meena, Village
- Nimoda, Tehsil - Sarada, District- Udaipur (Raj.)
7. Kailash Meena S/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal Meena, Village -
Nimoda, Tehsil - Sarada, District- Udaipur (Raj.)
8. Nirma Alias Niru D/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal Meena,
Village - Nimoda, Tehsil - Sarada, District- Udaipur
(Raj.)
9. Smt. Laali Devi W/o Late Sh. Bhaira Ji D/o Late Sh.
Shankar Lal Meena, Village - Nimoda, Tehsil - Sarada,
District- Udaipur (Raj.)
10. Sub-Registrar-I, Udaipur.
11. Sub-Registrar-Ii, Udaipur.
12. Sub-Registrar, Badgaon, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Mr. Ghanshyam Meena:-
Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate & Mr. Vikas Balia, Senior
Advocate, assisted by Mr. Hemant Balani & Mr. Saurabh.
For Grace Colonizers Private Limited:-
Dr. Sachin Acharya, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Jitendra
Mohan Choudhary & Mr. Samyak Dalal.
For Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur:-
Mr. Vijay Purohit.
(Downloaded on 01/12/2023 at 08:56:03 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:41568-DB] (4 of 8) [SAW-838/2023]
For Mr. Laxman Meena:-
Mr. Vivek Mathur and Mr. Sangram Singh.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Judgment
01/12/2023
1. These appeals have been filed by the appellants aggrieved of
the order dated 19.9.2023 passed in SBCWP No.9958/2023,
wherein, the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ
petition, passed certain directions.
2. The writ petition was filed by petitioner - Ghanshyam Meena
aggrieved of the order dated 23.5.2023 passed by the Urban
Improvement Trust, Udaipur ('UIT Udaipur'), whereby, the
representation made by him came to be rejected by the UIT,
Udaipur.
3. After hearing the appearing parties, learned Single Judge
inter alia came to the conclusion and directed as under:-
"5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as
perused the record of the case alongwith the
judgments cited at the Bar.
6. This Court observes that the petitioner filed the
aforementioned suit alongwith an application under
Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC against the respondents no.
3 to 9 before the learned Court below, whereafter, the
learned Court below passed the adinterim orders
dated 23.06.2022 & 19.07.2022 directing to maintain
the status quo, as it existed on those dates, regarding
the land in question.
7. This Court further observes that the respondent-
UIT was aware about the ongoing litigation and the
ad-interim orders so operative regarding the land in
[2023:RJ-JD:41568-DB] (5 of 8) [SAW-838/2023]
question; therefore, the allotment of the land in
question is violative, amongst others, of the
aforequoted provision of the Rules of 2012. This Court
also observes that the aforesaid ad-interim orders
were operative for the private parties and the
respondent-UIT was also aware about the same.
8. This Court, while observing that the judgments
cited at the Bar on behalf of the respondents, do not
render any assistance to their case, finds that the
principle of constructive res judicata is also not
applicable in the present case, because in the earlier
two writ petitions, this Hon'ble Court had directed to
decide the representation/objection(s) of the
petitioner, whereafter the said
representation/objection(s) were rejected; hence, the
present petition has been preferred.
9. Thus, in view of the above, and keeping into due
consideration the aforementioned provision of the
Rules of 2012, the respondent-UIT is directed to
strictly abide by the mandate of the aforesaid ad-
interim orders passed by the learned Court below.
9.1. Furthermore, to make it simpler for all the
parties, a clear mandate regarding the ongoing
litigation of the land in question is required to give
quietus to the present dispute; furthermore, it is also
noted by this Court that on count of the delay in
deciding the temporary injunction application and
keeping ad-interim order lurking, at this stage so
many complications are arising. Thus, the learned
Court below is directed to decide the temporary
injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC
within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of
a certified copy of this judgment, strictly in
accordance with law, and without getting prejudiced
on merits by any observations made in the present
judgment.
10. All the parties including respondent-UIT shall be
accordingly free to proceed with the process in
question, once the aforesaid temporary injunction
application is finally decided, until then, all the parties
[2023:RJ-JD:41568-DB] (6 of 8) [SAW-838/2023]
shall maintain status quo, as it exists today, regarding
the land in question.
11. The present petition stands disposed of
accordingly. All pending applications also stand
disposed of."
4. While the appellant - Laxman Meena is aggrieved of the fact
that no notice was issued to him before deciding the said writ
petition, the appellant - Grace Colonizers Private Limited is
aggrieved of the observations made and the directions given, the
UIT Udaipur is aggrieved of the observations made in para-7 of
the order impugned and the writ petitioner - Ghanshyam Meena is
aggrieved of non-grant of directions pursuant to the findings
recorded in para-7 of the writ petition.
5. A perusal of the directions given by learned Single Judge
would reveal that directions were given (i) to decide the
temporary injunction application pending under Order XXXIX Rule
1 and 2 CPC within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of
a certified copy of the judgment and (ii) till the decision of the
temporary injunction application, all the parties were directed to
maintain status quo. Whereafter, all the parties were let free to
proceed after decision on the temporary injunction application.
6. It is informed that the temporary injunction application has
been decided on 3.11.2023.
7. In view of the above decision on application, the direction
given by the learned Single Judge regarding decision on the
application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC within a period of
30 days already stands complied with and as a consequence, the
direction given to maintain status quo till disposal of the said
[2023:RJ-JD:41568-DB] (7 of 8) [SAW-838/2023]
application passed by learned Single Judge also merges into the
said order passed on the application seeking temporary injunction.
8. Therefore, the challenge now laid to the order passed by
learned Single Judge insofar as its operative portion is concerned,
no case is made out for interference by this Court.
9. Insofar as, the apprehension expressed by learned counsel
appearing for Grace Colonizers Private Limited as well as UIT
Udaipur with regard to the observations made in para-7 of the
order in the writ petition are concerned, the same are misplaced,
inasmuch as, the learned Single Judge while giving the direction
for decision of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2
CPC has clearly observed requiring the trial court to decide the
same in accordance with law and 'without getting prejudiced on
merits by any observations made in the present judgment'.
10. As the learned Single Judge himself has directed requiring
the Court not to get prejudiced on merits by the observations
made, the apprehension apparently has no basis insofar as the
decision based on the judgment impugned is concerned.
11. So far as the plea raised by appellant - Ghanshyam Meena is
concerned regarding the Court after making observations in para-
7 to have ordered cancellation of all the lease deeds / pattas
issued, we are of the opinion that as the observations made
apparently were without hearing the holders of the pattas involved
in the action of the UIT Udaipur, the relief now claimed in appeals,
cannot be granted. However, it is always open for the said
appellant to take appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law,
for the said relief.
[2023:RJ-JD:41568-DB] (8 of 8) [SAW-838/2023]
12. As far as the plea raised by the appellant - Laxman Meena
regarding non-hearing him in the writ petition is concerned,
apparently when the matter was argued by the State and other
respondents, the necessity / requirement of the presence of
Laxman Meena was not argued / pointed out and, therefore, it
cannot be said that in absence of the notice to appellant - Laxman
Meena, the order passed is in any manner vitiated. In any case, as
already observed, once the directions issued already stands
complied with and Laxman Meena has also been heard while
deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the
same cannot now form a basis for interfering with the order
passed by the learned Single Judge.
13. In view of the above discussion and the observations, the
appeals filed by the appellants stand disposed of.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J
17-18-30-35
Sumit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
