Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 10429 Raj
Judgement Date : 5 December, 2023
[2023:RJ-JD:42130]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 430/2009
Municipal Council Hanumangarh
----Appellant
Versus
Virendra Singh And Ors.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 484/2009
Sunil Kumar And Anr.
----Appellants
Versus
Virendra Singh And Ors.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.P. Sharma
Mr. Vipin Makkad
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishan Singhal assisted by
Ms. Anamika Bhagmar
Mr. Trilok Joshi
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
05/12/2023
1. The present two appeals arise out of the same judgment and
decree dated 08.07.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge
No.1, Hanumangarh in Civil Suit No.19/06 (CIS No.14/06).
2. The suit for declaration and permanent injunction was
preferred by the plaintiffs with the submission that the land
reserved for a playground/public park is being tried to be
converted by the defendant Municipal Council, Hanumangarh for
residential purposes and residential plots have been auctioned on
[2023:RJ-JD:42130] (2 of 3) [CFA-430/2009]
the said land de-hors the law. The suit as preferred by the
plaintiffs was decreed and the plots auctioned by the defendant
Municipal Council were declared to be illegal and further, the
Municipal Council was injuncted from developing any residential
colony on the land in question.
It is against the said judgment and decree that the present
two appeals have been preferred, first by the Municipal Council,
Hanumangarh and second by the persons who had been allotted
the plots on the land in question.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant Municipal Council as well
as the allottees submits that an amicable settlement has been
arrived into between the parties whereby the allottees of the land
in question have been allotted alternative plots on different sites
and on the land in question, a park has been developed.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs respondents does not deny
the said fact and admits that a park has been developed on the
land in question. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants in
both the appeals, seeks permission to withdraw the present
appeals.
5. However, learned counsel for the respondents defendants
Nos.5 to 8 submits that they are the persons who had applied for
allotment of plot on the land in question and had deposited 50%
of the demanded amount. Although no plot was allotted to them
but they have an equal right to be allotted an alternative land on
some other site.
6. In the specific opinion of this Court, there being neither any
appeal filed on behalf of the defendant Nos.5 to 8 nor any counter
[2023:RJ-JD:42130] (3 of 3) [CFA-430/2009]
claim by them in the suit, they cannot be held entitled to any
relief in the present appeal.
7. In view of the above submissions, the permission as prayed
for is granted. The appeals are permitted to be withdrawn and are
dismissed as such.
8. Needless to say that defendant respondent Nos.5 to 8 would
be at liberty to approach the Municipal Council, Hanumangarh for
redressal of their grievances, if any.
9. Stay petitions and all pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J 235-236/KashishS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!