Rajasthan High Court
Krystal Stone Exports Ltd,Mumb vs R S I D And Investment Corp Lt ... on 30 November, 2023
[2023:RJ-JP:36687]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.975/2007
Krystal Stone Exports Limited a company incorporated under the
provisions of Companies Act. Having its registered office at 8,
Blasian Building, Amboli Naka, S.V. Road, Andheri West, Mumbai
and having works at S.P.2, Industrial Area, Kalkipura,
Shivdaspura.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Limited (RIICO) through Managing Director, Udhyog
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. Regional Manager, RIICO Limited, Jaipur South, Malviya
Industrial Area, Jaipur.
3. M/s. Precious Stone Pvt. Limited, 7, Usha Colony, Malviya
Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.R.P. Garg, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Virendra Lodha, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr.Rachit Sharma, Adv.
Mr.Ajay Singh Rathore, Adv. for
Mr.Punit Singhvi, Adv. for No.3.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 23rd November, 2023
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 30th, November,2023
REPORTABLE
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:-
1. This petition was filed seeking quashing of allotment of land
measuring 4000 sq. meters situated at Plot No.SP-6 at Industrial
Area, Kilkipura (Shivdaspura) Jaipur, in favour of respondent No.3.
Further direction is sought to the respondents No.1 & 2 to allot the
said land along-with other adjacent land to the petitioner after
removal of encroachments.
[2023:RJ-JP:36687] (2 of 5) [CW-975/2007]
Parties:-
2. Krystal Stone Exports Limited, a company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 is the petitioner. Respondent No.1
is Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Limited (for short 'RIICO'). Respondent No.2 is
Regional Manager, RIICO. Respondent No.3 is M/s.Precious Stone
Private Limited.
Facts:-
3. The facts as pleaded by the petitioner are that on
18.12.1996 the petitioner submitted an application for allotment
of approximately 25,000/- sq. mts. of land. On 17.01.1997 Plot
No.SP-2 at Kilkipura (Shivdaspura) Industrial Area, measuring
16,000 sq. mts. was allotted to the petitioner. On 29.01.1997
while handing over the physical possession, actual physical land
available was found to be 14028 sq. mts. and was handed over.
4. The petitioner represented to the respondent Nos.1 & 2
(hereinafter referred to as 'respondents') for removal of the
encroachments and allotment of the balance area. A letter dated
23.09.1998 was issued stating that a physical possession of plot in
Industrial Area Kilkipura, District Jaipur, as per the sketch given on
backside measuring 6742.80 sq. mtr. was handed over. But
actually no physically possession was handed over. The petitioner
in pursuance to the physical possession letter, deposited a sum of
Rs.1,68,570/- through a cheque dated 16.05.1999 drawn on
Central Bank of India, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
[2023:RJ-JP:36687] (3 of 5) [CW-975/2007]
5. In pursuance to an application made under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 vide communication dated 09.01.2007, the
petitioner was informed that plot measuring 4000/- sq. meters by
auction was allotted to respondent No.3.
6. Petitioner filed a representation dated 18.01.2007 for setting
aside the allotment of plot to respondent No.3.
Contentions of the Petitioner:-
7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made
an application for allotment of 25,000 sq. meters of land but
16000 sq. mtr of land was allotted and physical possession of
14028 sq. mtr. was handed over. The argument is that
respondents assured for allotment of the balance land and
consequently the physical possession letter dated 23.09.1998 was
issued albeit, no physical possession was given. The contention is
that the petitioner had deposited 25% of development charges in
pursuance to the physical possession letter dated 23.09.1998, the
petitioner is being forced to operate the unit in a plot measuring
14,000 sq. mtr.
Contentions of the Respondents:-
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submits that the
physical possession letter dated 02.09.1998 has no legal sanctity
under the Disposal of Land Rules, 1979. The letter was procured
by the petitioner in connivance with the Ferroman and Senior
Regional Manager of RIICO. The Ferroman was not authorized to
handover the physical possession of land and no possession was
handed over. He further submits that the departmental
[2023:RJ-JP:36687] (4 of 5) [CW-975/2007]
proceedings were initiated against Sh. A.K. Agarwal, Senior
Regional Manager, RIICO, for issuance of physical possession letter
dated 02.09.1998. He contended that the cheque of Rs.1,68,570/-
of the petitioner was not encashed, as no demand was raised.
Relying upon the unrebutted pleadings in the reply, submission is
that the petitioner till date has only utilized 15% of land originally
allotted.
Conclusion:-
9. The contention to set aside the plot allotted to respondent
No.3 through auction has no merits. It would be relevant to note
that the petitioner was allotted a Plot No.SP-6, Kilkipura
(Shivdaspura) Industrial Area, whereas the allotment to
respondent No.3 is of Plot No.SP-2 i.e. a different plot.
10. Heavy reliance placed upon the letter of physical possession
dated 02.09.1998 for handing over the possession of land
measuring 6742.80 sq. meters is of no avail. From the perusal of
the letter, it is evident that no Plot number is mentioned in the
letter. It would be pertinent to note that it is not the case of the
petitioner that land measuring 6742.80 sq. meters was allotted to
the petitioner or the physical possession was handed over. In this
backdrop, the case set up by the respondents that the letter of
physical possession was procured in connivance with the Ferroman
and Senior Regional Manager gains strength.
11. There is another angle with regard to physical possession
letter dated 29.01.1997. The possession of the originally allotted
land was handed over by the Assistant Site Engineer and is signed
[2023:RJ-JP:36687] (5 of 5) [CW-975/2007]
by him, whereas in the letter dated 23.09.1998, the seal is of
Assistant Engineer (Site)/Assistant Regional Manager and the
signatures are of Ferroman. No provision has been brought to the
notice of this Court that Ferroman was authorized to handover the
physical possession.
12. Moreover, the physical possession letter dated 23.09.1998
mentions that possession of land measuring 6742.80 sq. mtr. as
per sketch given on back side is handed over but no sketch has
been attached with the petition.
13. The claim made by the petitioner is based upon the disputed
questions of fact. No illegality has been pointed out for
interference by this Court to quash the allotment of land made to
the respondent No.3.
14. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed.
(AVNEESH JHINGAN), J
HS/Chandan/712
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
