Rajasthan High Court
Vijay Kumar Swami S/O Late Shri Shiv ... vs Smt. Ginni Devi W/O Late Shri Ramchandra ... on 10 October, 2024
[2024:RJ-JP:43058]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12462/2024
Vijay Kumar Swami S/o Late Shri Shiv Prasad Swami, Aged
About 51 Years, Resident Of Opposite Sd-126, Chakchuhawas,
Shanti Nagar, At Present Plot No. 5 Shanti Nagar, Hatwada Road,
Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Ginni Devi W/o Late Shri Ramchandra Sharma, R/o
Village Chakchuhawas No. 2, Nayi Dhani Nbc Quarter,
Opposite Sd-126, Shanti Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Shyam Sundar S/o Late Shri Ramchandra Sharma, R/o
Village Chakchuhawas No. 2, Nayi Dhani Nbc Quarter,
Opposite Sd-126, Shanti Nagar, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Office Of Deputy Commissioner,
Civil Lines Zone, Jaipur.
4. Tehsildar, Nagar Nigam Heritage, Jaipur.
5. Kalla S/o Shri Sedu, Resident Of Village Chakchuhawas
No. 2,gram Bassi Sitarampura, Patwar Halka Sodala,
Tehsil Jaipur, District Jaipur.
6. Dhanna S/o Shri Sedu, Resident Of Village Chakchuhawas
No. 2,gram Bassi Sitarampura, Patwar Halka Sodala,
Tehsil Jaipur, District Jaipur.
7. Nathu S/o Shri Banshi, Resident Of Village Chakchuhawas
No. 2,gram Bassi Sitarampura, Patwar Halka Sodala,
Tehsil Jaipur, District Jaipur.
8. Prabhu Narayan S/o Shri Banshi, Resident Of Village
Chakchuhawas No. 2,gram Bassi Sitarampura, Patwar
Halka Sodala, Tehsil Jaipur, District Jaipur.
9. Phool Chand S/o Banshi, Resident Of Village
Chakchuhawas No. 2,gram Bassi Sitarampura, Patwar
Halka Sodala, Tehsil Jaipur, District Jaipur.
10. Bodu Lal S/o Shri Moolchand, Resident Of Village
Chakchuhawas No. 2,gram Bassi Sitarampura, Patwar
Halka Sodala, Tehsil Jaipur, District Jaipur.
11. Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Banshi, Resident Of Village
Chakchuhawas No. 2,gram Bassi Sitarampura, Patwar
Halka Sodala, Tehsil Jaipur, District Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 17/10/2024 at 09:46:33 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:43058] (2 of 4) [CW-12462/2024]
12. Radhe S/o Shri Banshi, Resident Of Village Chakchuhawas
No. 2,gram Bassi Sitarampura, Patwar Halka Sodala,
Tehsil Jaipur, District Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Prasad Sharma
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
Order
10/10/2024
1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of appellate judgment
dated 14.06.2024 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur.
2. The brief facts are that respondents No.5 to 12 filed an
application under Section 90A of Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for
short 'the Act') for conversion of the land measuring 0.4173
hectares situated in Khasra No.16 revenue village Chakchuhawas
No.2. The application was allowed on 31.07.2023. Consequently,
the mutation bearing No.27 dated 04.09.2023 was sanctioned in
the name of Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Heritage and the nature
of the land was changed in the revenue record to "for purpose of
residential scheme". Respondents No.1 and 2 filed appeal before
the Divisional Commissioner pleading that the plot was purchased
by Ramchandra Sharma on 29.09.1988. One of the plot in Khasra
No.16 was purchased by Laduram who had raised construction
and the appellants were owners/tenants of the land in question. It
was alleged that the conversion order was result of manipulation.
Further prayer was made that respondents be restrained not to
interfere in the peaceful occupation of the land. The application
filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was allowed. The
[2024:RJ-JP:43058] (3 of 4) [CW-12462/2024]
appeal was accepted vide order dated 23.04.2024 and the
conversion order was set aside.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that appeal was
filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 and the conversion of the
entire land could not have been set aside. It is argued that the
civil litigation is pending amongst the parties.
4. The appellate authority held that by the proceedings of
Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Jaipur Heritage dated 10.05.2023 the
petitioner Vijay Kumar Swami was given ownership of a passage
six ft. wide and no payment was made by the petitioner for the
passage. The gate and the passage are on the site. After the
conversion, the husband of respondent No.1 got lease deed in his
favour. The conversion order was passed without any evidence
being produced and without opportunity of hearing to the effective
parties and cannot be sustained.
5. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, the plot was sold to
father of the petitioner, however, due to pendency of the litigation
the patta in the name of the petitioner was not issued.
6. As per the pleadings, civil suit bearing No.1057/2023 with
regard to title of the land is pending and the petitioner is
defendant No.5 in the suit.
7. It is not disputed that husband of respondent No.1 and
father of respondent No.2 were issued the lease deed for the land
in question which was registered on 31.12.1988. The conversion
application was allowed without recording satisfaction that the
applicant was the owner/khatedar of the land in question. The
revenue record was not perused for determining the parties
affected by the conversion of land in question.
[2024:RJ-JP:43058] (4 of 4) [CW-12462/2024]
8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that in
the appeal of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 the conversion of the
entire land in khasra No.16 could not have been set aside, lacks
merit. By the order dated 31.07.2023, the entire land measuring
0.1473 hectare in khasra No.16 is situated in Village
Chakchuhawas was converted. The challenge in the appeal was to
the order and it had to go in toto. There was no material before
the appellate authority to bifurcate the land for conversion in
appellate proceedings.
9. Another aspect is that there are civil litigations pending
amongst parties with regard to title of the land and this was not
taken into account while passing the order of conversion.
10. Needless to say that the affected parties having a lawful
ownership or a lease deed shall always be at liberty to apply for
conversion in accordance with law.
11. No case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction.
12. The petition is dismissed.
(AVNEESH JHINGAN), J
Chandan/HS/26
Whether Reportable : Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
