Rajasthan High Court
Nanagram Son Of Late Shri ... vs M/S Surgitech on 9 January, 2023
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 86/2022
Nanagram Son Of Late Shri Prabhatilal, Aged About 50 Years,
Resident Of Plot No. 60 And 63, Opposite Shanti Vihar Mahal,
Jagatpura, Jaipur. At Present Village Mahal, Teshil Sanganer,
District Jaipur.
---Defendant No.1/Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Surgitech, Partnership Firm Through Partner
Dharmendra Dutt Sharma Son Of Devdatt Sharma,
Residento 482, Oriental Bank, Arcade Colony, Near Gyan
Vihar University, Jagatpura, Jaipur And Office At 25,
Chetak Marg, Near J.k. Lone Hopital, Jaipur, At Present
Office At C-58-A, Ayodhya Enclave, Mahaveer Marg, C-
Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Smt. Rekha Gupta Wife Of Shri Ram Babu Gupta,
Resident Of A 216, Central Spine Yojna, Jagatpura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan. Palintiffs / Respondent No. 1 And 2.
3. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Secretary,
Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority,
Zone No. 9, Jda, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.
5. Shanti Vihar Vikas Samiti, Through Secretary Shri Kamal
Bhatra Son Of Late Shri Kalyan Sahay Sharma, Resident
Of 32, Shanti Vihar, Gram Mahal Jaipur, Rajasthan.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. K. Agarwal, Senior Counsel
with Mr. Bajrang Lal Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. Adhiraj Modi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. L. L. Gupta, Adv.
Mr. R. A. Katta, Adv.
Mr. Ramniwas Saini, Adv. on behalf of
Mr. Anurag Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Monu Kumar, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON :: 05.01.2023
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 09.01.2023
This instant revision petition is directed against the order
dated 06.04.2022 passed by Additional District Judge No.10,
(2 of 4) [CR-86/2022]
Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Sanganer in Civil Suit No.32/2022 whereby
the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the
defendant/petitioner (for short 'the defendant') has been
dismissed.
The brief facts noticed for disposal of the instant petition is
that plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 and 2 (for short 'the plaintiffs')
have filed a suit for specific performance, declaration, mandatory
and permanent injunction against the defendant in which plaintiffs
stated that by way of agreement dated 11.07.2019, defendant-
Nanagram by caste Balai had executed the agreement of land
measuring 3.22 hectares situated in Village Mahal, Tehsil
Sanganer which was acquired by JDA for handing over the
possession of 25% developed land being allotted to him by JDA in
lieu of compensation.
The defendant had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC before the trial court but trial court vide order dated
06.04.2022 dismissed the application filed by the defendant.
Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that a bare
reading of the averment made in the plaint by the plaintiffs clearly
reveals that the defendant-Nanagram is by caste Balai and as per
the Section 42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, land belongs to
the person who is of scheduled caste community cannot be
transferred to member of general caste, so, agreement entered
between the parties is ab initio void and cannot be enforceable.
Learned trial court has not considered the provision of Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, so, suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by law.
Learned counsel for the defendant also submitted that defendant
clearly mentioned in the application that so called agreement is
(3 of 4) [CR-86/2022]
fraud and cannot be enforceable. Learned counsel for the
defendant also submitted that as per the agreement, it is totally
uncertainty that which land would be received by the defendant as
a compensation in lieu of land acquisition proceedings. So, order
of the trial court be set aside and plaint filed by the plaintiffs be
dismissed.
Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon
the following judgments : (1) Kuju Collieries Ltd. Vs.
Jharkhand Mines Ltd. & Ors. reported in (1974) 2 SCC 533;
(2) Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh
(dead) by legal reported in (2020) 16 SCC 601; (3) Dahiben
Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali reported in (2020) 7 SCC
366 and (4) Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. New Pink City
Nirman Sahkari Samiti reported in (2015) 7 SCC 601.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs have opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and
submitted that a bare reading of the plaint clearly reveals that
plaintiffs are not going to purchase the land belongs to scheduled
caste person. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submitted that
provision of Section 42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act is not applicable
in present proceedings. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also
submitted that the agreement clearly reveals that land which
would be allotted to the defendant is subject matter of the suit not
the land which was acquired. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs
also submitted that objection regarding tenancy Act was not taken
before the trial court. It is a totally new ground in the revision
petition, so, this ground cannot be considered at this stage.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submitted that trial court
(4 of 4) [CR-86/2022]
has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by
the defendant. So, revision petition be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon
the following judgments : (1) Chomu Sahakari Kray Vikary
Samiti Limited Vs. Jagdeeshprasad Meena & Ors. in S.B.
Civil First Appeal No.639/2012 decided on 22.01.2013; (2)
Ramniwas Vs. Bhairav Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. in
S.B. Civil Revision No.150/2016 decided on 03.02.2017 and
(3) Radhey Shyam Sharma Vs. Shrimat Mahaveer Buildcon
Private Ltd. in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.81/2013
decided on 04.11.2016.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the
plaintiffs.
It is an admitted position that plaintiffs had filed a suit for
specific performance. They sought the performance of the contract
land which was going to be allotted in acquisition proceedings as a
compensation. So, in my considered opinion, provision of Section
42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act is not applicable in this proceeding.
So, learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application filed by
the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. So, present petition is
being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.
Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.
Pending application also stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin/94
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
