Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagdish Chandra Tailor vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:46722) on 29 October, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:46722]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Writ Misc Application No. 380/2025
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6929/2025
Jagdish Chandra Tailor S/o Shivnarayan Tailor, aged about 47
Years, resident of Dhau Ji Ki Bawri, Rakampura Road, Bedwas,
Udaipur Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary, Urban
Development and Housing Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur, through its
Commissioner.
3. Secretary, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.
4. Deputy Inspector General, Registration and Stamps,
District Udaipur.
5. Sub-Registrar-I, Udaipur.
6. Sub-Registrar-II, Udaipur.
7. Tehsildar, Girwa, District Udaipur.
8. Tehsildar, Badgaon, District Udaipur.
9. Tehsildar, Kurabad, District Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Samyak Dalal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
29/10/2025
1. The present misc. application has been filed seeking
correction/modification/clarification in the judgment dated
29.08.2025 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.6929/2025 whereunder Para Nos.1, 4, and 22 it has been
(Uploaded on 29/10/2025 at 05:46:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46722] (2 of 4) [WMAP-380/2025]
mentioned that the matter has been considered by the Layout
Plan Committee however infact such consideration was done by
General Body Meeting/ General House of the Udaipur Development
Authority (UDA). The other mistakes as pointed out in the
application is that in narrating the arguments of the counsel
appeared in Para Nos14 and 15 it is mentioned that the arguments
of the intervenor also considered infact no intervening petitions
have been filed therein.
2. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
these errors are on account of intermixing of some facts in batch
of petitions wherein some of the petitions the objections of local
audit department and Enquiry Committee report Layout Plan
Committee has considered and in some of the cases General Body
Meeting/General House of Udaipur Development Authority has
considered. In the present case, objections of audit department
and enquiry report was placed before before the General Body
Meeting of Udaipur Development Authority. He also contended that
in Para Nos.14 & 15 the arguments of intervenor was accepted
infact in these cases there was no intervening petitions and the
same was on account of some of batch of cases intervenor
appeared, the same arguments were continued in the present
case. Therefore, he seeks correction of those errors occurred in
the judgment.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the
application on the ground that the judgment which are sought to
be corrected are impugned before the Division Bench. The Division
Bench can only allow such corrections and this Court cannot
entertain the present application filed by the petitioner. Any
(Uploaded on 29/10/2025 at 05:46:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46722] (3 of 4) [WMAP-380/2025]
correction, if required, has to be made by the Hon'ble Division
Bench and not by this Court.
4. Having gone through the averments of the petition and the
impugned judgment, in the impugned judgment, it is mentioned
that the audit objections and enquiry report was placed before the
Layout Plan Committee infact, the same was laid before the
General Body Meeting of Udaipur Development Authority. These
errors are on account of intermixing of facts in a batch of writ
petitions. In some of the writ petitions, such objections and audit
reports were placed before the Layout Plan Committee.
5. It is undisputed fact that in the present case, the report of
local audit objections and enquiry report are placed before the
General Body Meeting and not the Layout Plan Committee. This is
purely a typographical error on account of disposal of various
batch of petitions alongwith this writ petition. The other mistake is
with regard to adverting to the arguments of learned counsel
appearing for the intervenor. Infact, in this case there was no
intervenor and the same was occurred on account that in some of
the petitions the intervening petitions were filed by third party and
his arguments were taken into account. This is also a duly mistake
error.
6. The objection of learned counsel for the respondents that
this Court cannot correct the errors has no legs to stand and same
is rejected.
7. In the result, the application is allowed.
8. In the judgment dated 29.08.2025 passed in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.6929/2025, in Para Nos.1, 4 and 22 "Layout Plan
Committee" shall now be read as "General Body
(Uploaded on 29/10/2025 at 05:46:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46722] (4 of 4) [WMAP-380/2025]
Meeting/General House of Udaipur Development Authority"
and in Para Nos.14 and 15 learned counsels appearing for
respondents and intervenor shall now be read as "learned
counsel appearing for respondents".
9. This order instant shall be treated as part and parcel of the
order dater 29.08.2025
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
130-Dharmendra Rakhecha/-
(Uploaded on 29/10/2025 at 05:46:37 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
