State Of Rajasthan vs M/S Aliment Build Estate Pvt. Ltd. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1843 Raj

[2023/RJJD/005836]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5965/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Girwa, District Udaipur.

2. District Collector, Udaipur.

----Petitioners Versus Raju S/o Devilal Bhil Gameti, Resident Of 133, Devali, Udaipur.

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2087/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Girwa, District Udaipur.

2. District Collector, Udaipur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. M/s Aliment Build Estate Pvt. Ltd. Udaipur, Through Its Authorized Representative Himanshu Son Of Shri Sampatlal Jain, Resident Of Udaipur.

2. Ramsingh S/o Bhimsingh Chouhan, Resident Of Umrada, District Udaipur.

3. Shrimati Krishna W/o Ramsingh Chouhan, Resident Of Umrada, District Udaipur.

4. Suresh S/o Jagdish Dangi, Resident Of Umrada, District Udaipur.

5. Mukesh S/o Manilal Jain, Resident Of Umrada, District Udaipur.

6. Vijay Jain S/o Chogalal Jain, Resident Of 325-A-One Road, Bhopalpura, Udaipur.

7. Rajesh Jain S/o Chogalal Jain, Resident Of 325-A-One Road, Bhopalpura, Udaipur.

                                                   ----Respondents



For Petitioners           :     Mr. R.D. Bhadu, AGC0
For Respondents           :     Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

                                     Order

17/02/2023

1. These Civil Writ Petitions have been preferred claiming for

the following reliefs:-

[2023/RJJD/005836] (2 of 8) [CW-5965/2021]

In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5965/2021:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioner that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and:- I. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 20.12.2017 (Annex.4) passed by the Board of Revenue and judgment dated 07.10.2013 (Annex.2) passed by Revenue Appellate Authority Chittorgarh (Camp Udaipur) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

II. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 28.06.2013 (Annex.1) be restored.

III. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

IV. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."

In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2087/2021:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioner that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and:- I. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 11.10.2017 (Annex.4) passed by the Board of Revenue and judgment dated 07.10.2013 (Annex.2) passed by Revenue Appellate Authority Chittorgarh (Camp Udaipur) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

II. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the order dated 28.06.2013 (Annex.1) be restored.

III. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

IV. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents preferred an

application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Conversion

Rules, 2007 for the conversion of the lands situated at Khasra no.

[2023/RJJD/005836] (3 of 8) [CW-5965/2021]

3757, 3758, 3759 and 3761, admeasuring a total of 2.66

hectares. Thereafter, the petitioner-State sought a report from the

concerned Patwari and Tehsildar. That report dated 08.11.2012

was submitted by the concerned Patwari and reprot dated

16.11.2012 was submitted by the concerned Tehsildar.

2.1 That the aforesaid application was rejected by the District

Collector-Udaipur vide order dated 28.06.2013 on the ground that

the land in question was falling in the periphery belt and that

therefore the conversion application was bad.

2.2 Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the

private respondents before the Revenue Appellate Authority,

Chittorgarh (Camp Udaipur) which was allowed vide judgment

dated 07.10.2013.

2.3 Against the said judgment, the petitioner-State preferred an

appeal before the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer which was

dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2017.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State assails the

impugned orders on the grounds that the learned Courts below

failed to appreciate the fact that the lands in question was falling

within the periphery belt and therefore the same could not have

been converted. And that the District Collector, Udaipur vide

impugned order dated 28.06.2013 upon finding certain

irregularities with respect to the lands in question rightly cancelled

the earlier order dated 23.01.2013.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the

petitioner-State and submits that the present petition was

[2023/RJJD/005836] (4 of 8) [CW-5965/2021]

preferred in the year 2021 against the order passed by the

learned Board of Revenue in the year 2017, and that there is an

inordinate delay of about three-four years, for which no

justification has been advanced by the petitioner-State. And that

although no limitation period is prescribed for filing of a writ

petition, a lack of explanation/justification thereof ought to be

viewed adversely against the petitioner-State, and their petition

ought to dismissed at threshold. Reliance in this regard was placed

upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Bherulal

(Special Leave Petition (C) Diary No. 9217/2020) decided on

15.10.2020.

Relevant portion of the said judgment as relied upon by learned

counsel is reproduced hereunder:-

"7. We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible.

8. Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, we consider appropriate to impose costs on the petitionerState of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. The amount be deposited in four weeks. The amount be recovered from the officers responsible for the delay in filing the special leave petition and a certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the said period of time.

9. The special leave petition is dismissed as time barred in terms aforesaid."

[2023/RJJD/005836] (5 of 8) [CW-5965/2021]

5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that a

perusal of the reports prepared by the concerned Patwari and the

Tehsildar, dated 08.11.2012 and 16.11.2012 respectively, (at

Annex. R/1 and R/2 respectively) clearly state that the lands is

free from charge, no suit is pending with respect to such lands and

that the lands in question do not come under the master plan for

the periphery area, and that the same is not reserved for

acquisition purposes either. Furthermore, that the said reports

were verified and upheld by the S.D.O. Girva.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the

aforementioned reports were duly placed before the District

Collector, Udaipur and that the application preferred on behalf of

the respondents was considered and allowed vide order dated

23.01.2013. However, that the District Collector-Udaipur going

beyond his jurisdiction crossed his own signatures on the order

dated 23.01.2013 and vide order dated 28.06.2013 and

mentioned that the earlier order dated 23.01.2013 stood

cancelled.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the

District Collector is not empowered to review his own order as

there is no provision of law available which permits him to do so.

Furthermore, that the same was done without affording the

respondents an opportunity of hearing.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the

State cannot give retrospective effect to the Notification published

for the implementation of Master Plan as it is evident by perusal of

office note-sheet that till the process for conversion of the lands in

[2023/RJJD/005836] (6 of 8) [CW-5965/2021]

question was going on, the Notification for the Master Plan was

not published and it was only the draft plan that was in existence.

9. Learned counsel further submits that aggrieved by the same,

the respondents preferred an appeal against the order dated

28.06.2013 before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority,

Chittorgarh (Camp Udaipur) which was allowed vide order dated

07.10.2013 observing that no reasons were attributed to the

cancellation of the order dated 23.01.2013 by the District

Collector-Udaipur, and that the same was done without affording

an opportunity of hearing to the respondents.

10. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner-State

preferred an appeal against the aforementioned order, before the

learned Board of Revenue, which was dismissed vide order dated

20.02.2017, while observing that the lands in question are not

situated within the periphery area and that the Site Inspection

Report, prepared by the concerned Patwari reflected the same.

And that, there was no provision of law whereby the District

Collector could have reviewed his own order.

11. Heard. Perused the record of the case as well as the

judgment cited at the Bar.

12. At the outset, this Court finds that the petitioner-State has

not provided any reason or justification for the inordinate delay in

preferring the present petition. The petitioner-State presented the

present petition on 26.03.2021 while the impugned order was

passed by the learned Board of Revenue on 11.10.2017. There is

a delay of 1262 days for which no explanation has been proffered

on behalf of the petitioner-State.

[2023/RJJD/005836] (7 of 8) [CW-5965/2021]

13. This Court observes that the learned Revenue Appellate

Authority, Chittorgarh vide impugned order dated 07.10.2013

while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondents against

order dated 28.06.2013 passed by the District Collector-Udaipur,

is a non speaking order, whereby the Distict Collector merely

struck his signatures on the previous order, dated 23.01.2023,

passed by him, and wrote "cancelled", without attributing any

reasons for the same. Furthermore, that the private respondents

were not afforded opportunity of hearing by the District Collector-

Udaipur in passing the order dated 28.06.2013.

14. This Court further observes that the learned Board of

Revenue, Ajmer has recorded the finding that the lands in

question were clearly not within the periphery area, as reflected

from the reports of the concerned Patwari and concerned

Tehsildar, and therefore could be converted as under the

Rajasthan Land Conversion Rules, 2007. Furthermore, that the

respondents were not afforded opportunity of hearing by the

District Collector-Udaipur in passing the impugned order dated

28.06.2013 whereby the order dated 23.01.2013 allowing the

Section 9 conversion application of the respondents was allowed.

15. This Court also observes, as the office note-sheet dated

17.09.2013, reveals that the Notification with respect to the

Master Plan of the lands in question was in a draft stage, and the

final Master Plan was not published while the application under

Section 9 of the Rules of 2007 was preferred. And therefore, any

subsequent development in finalization of the Master Plan cannot

be said to have retrospective effect.

[2023/RJJD/005836] (8 of 8) [CW-5965/2021]

16. As an upshot of the above discussion, looking into the

impugned orders and the arguments advanced on behalf of the

petitioner-State, this Court finds that the impugned orders do not

suffer from any legal infirmity, and therefore do not warrant the

interference of this Court in the concurrent and consecutive orders

of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority and the learned Board

of Revenue, dated 07.10.2013 and 20.12.2017 respectively.

17. Resultantly, the present petitions are without merit and both

are dismissed. Accordingly, all pending applications, also stand

dismissed.

18. No order as to costs.

(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J 147-Sanjay/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)