Rajendra Khatri vs Urban Improvement Trust ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4109 Raj

[2023/RJJD/013427]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 480/2011

1. Rajendra Khatri S/o Shri Hanumandas Khatri, aged 45 years, resident of LNT Road, Bikaner

2. Shishupal Singh, S/o Shri Arjunram, By Caste Choudhary, C/o Brij Ratan Acharya, Inside City Light Street, Joshiwada, Bikaner.

----Appellant Versus

1. Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, through its Secretary

2. Nagar Vikas Nyas, Bikaner, through its Chairman.

3. Smt. Sharda Devi W/o Sh. Rajendra Kapoor, Resident Of 3 E 143, Jainarayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. M.S. Purohit
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Rajeev Purohit



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

                                       Order

04/05/2023

1. The present second appeal has been preferred on behalf of

the appellant-plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated

19.10.2005 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Bikaner in

Regular Appeal No.30/2002 whereby the judgment and decree

dated 15.02.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior

Division) No.2, Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No.53/1998

dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs was affirmed.

2. The facts of the matter are that applications were invited by

the defendant-UIT Bikaner for allotment of some residential plots

under a scheme and for the same, the categories according to the

[2023/RJJD/013427] (2 of 2) [CSA-480/2011]

income group were specified. One of the eligible category was of

the State Government employees falling within the pay scale of

Rs.801-1500 per month to be calculated on the basis of basic

grade pay plus dearness allowance. The applications as preferred

by all the three plaintiffs were rejected on the premise that they

do not fall in the category as specified as they received the salary

more than limit as prescribed. Both the Courts below reached to a

specific finding that plaintiffs did not fall in the said category and

therefore, the suit was dismissed.

3. In the opinion of this Court firstly, the said is a pure

question of fact and the concurrent finding arrived by both the

Courts below does not deserve any interference as the same does

not involve any question of law. Secondly, the scheme in

question pertained to the year 1994 and it is quite natural that the

process would have been completed way back and the plots in

question would have been allotted to the eligible applicants. No

substantial relief now, in the year 2023, can even otherwise be

granted.

4. In view of the above facts, no substantial question of law

arises in the present appeal and the same is therefore,

dismissed.

5. All pending applications stand disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J 5-AbhishekS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)