[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Premlata Sethia vs Urban Development Trust on 12 March, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:11813]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 63/2026
1. Premlata Sethia W/o Mehtab Sethia, Aged About 68 Years,
R/o B-32, 33 Polytechnic College Road, Rotary Circle,
Near Sadulganj, Bikaner Raj.
2. Gautam Sethia S/o Shri Mehtab Sethia, Aged About 49
Years, R/o B-32, 33 Polytechnic College Road, Rotary
Circle, Near Sadulganj, Bikaner Raj.
3. Manish Sethia S/o Mehtab Sethia, Aged About 51 Years,
R/o B-32, 33 Polytechnic College Road, Rotary Circle,
Near Sadulganj, Bikaner Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Urban Development Trust, Bikaner Through Officer In
Charge, Authorised Officer, Urban Development Trust
Bikaner
2. Sub Registrar, Office Of Sub-Registration Bikaner
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 70/2026
Manish Sethia S/o Shri Mehtab Sethia, Aged About 51 Years,
R/o B-32, 33 Polytechnic College Road Rotary Circle Near
Sadulganj, Bikaner Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Urban Development Trust, Bikaner Through Officer In
Charge, Authorised Officer Urban Development Trust
Bikaner
2. Sub Registrar, Office Of Sub Registration Bikaner
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 72/2026
Chitra Setia W/o Shri Manish Sethia, Aged About 50 Years,
R/o B- 32, 33 Polytechnic College Road, Rotary Circle, Near
Sadulganj, Bikaner (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 06:48:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/03/2026 at 08:49:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11813] (2 of 5) [CR-63/2026]
1. Urban Development Trust, Bikaner Through Officer- In-
Charge, Authorised Officer Urban Development Trust,
Bikaner
2. Sub Registrar, Office Of Sub- Registration, Bikaner
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 73/2026
Gautam Sethia S/o Shri Mehtab Sethia, Aged About 49 Years,
R/o B-32, 33 Polytechnic College Road, Rotary Circle, Near
Sadulganj, Bikaner Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Urban Development Trust, Bikaner Through Officer In
Charge, Authorised Officer, Urban Development Trust
Bikaner
2. Sub-Registrar, Office Of Sub Registration, Bikaner
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 75/2026
Premlata Sethia W/o Shri Mehtab Sethia, Aged About 68
Years, R/o B-32, 33 Polytechnic College Road, Rotary Circle,
Near Sadulganj Bikaner, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Urban Development Trust, Bikaner Through Officer In
Charge, Authorised Officer Urban Development Trust,
Bikaner.
2. Sub Registrar, Office Of Sub Registration Bikaner
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 78/2026
Anila Sethia W/o Shri Gautam Sethia, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o B-32, 33 Polytechnic College Road, Rotary Circle, Near
Sadulganj, Bikaner, Raj.
----Petitioner
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 06:48:52 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/03/2026 at 08:49:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11813] (3 of 5) [CR-63/2026]
Versus
1. Urban Development Trust, Bikaner Through Officer In
Charge, Authorised Officer, Urban Development Trust
Bikaner.
2. Sub Registrar, Office Of Sub Registration, Bikaner
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jayram Saran
Mr. Nikhil Bishnoi
Mr. Devendra Deelu
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
12/03/2026
1. The present revision petitions have been filed aggrieved of
order dated 28.10.2025 passed by Additional Civil Judge No.3,
Bikaner in Civil Original Suit Nos. 315/2019, 311/2019,
312/2019, 314/2019, 313/2019 and 310/2019 respectively,
whereby applications under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC filed on behalf
of the defendants, stood rejected.
2. The ground raised by the defendants was that in terms of
Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Disposal of Urban
Land) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred as 'Rules of 1974'), it is
only the Divisional Commissioner who could have gone into the
issue whether the patta/lease deed issued in favour of the original
allottee was valid or not. Without moving any application before
the Divisional Commissioner in terms of Rule 30 of the Rules of
1974, the present suit before a Civil Court was not maintainable.
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 06:48:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11813] (4 of 5) [CR-63/2026]
3. The learned Trial Court, while rejecting the applications,
observed that Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974 did not provide for
any bar for a Civil Court to hear the suit.
4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Trial
Court made an erroneous interpretation of Rule 30 of the Rules of
1974 whereas it specifically lays down the process to be
undertaken to decide the correctness, legality and propriety of
any transfer of land. The lands in question having been allotted
by the Urban Improvement Trust, the Divisional Commissioner
definitely had the authority to act in accordance with Rule 30 and
the Civil Court could not have entertained the suit.
5. Heard the counsel. Perused the record.
6. Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974 reads as under:-
[30.] Proceedings of transfer can be stayed
pending examination.- (1) The Divisional
Commissioner for the purpose of satisfying itself as to
the correctness legality or propriety of any transfer of
land made under the provisions of these rules by auction
or allotment by any Trust call for the relevant record and
may while doing so direct that pending the examination
of the matter, such transfer of land shall be withheld,
(2) If, after examining the record and after affording a
reasonable opportunity of explanation to the parties
concerned, the Divisional Commissioner is satisfied that
the transfer of land by the Trust by auction or allotment
is not in accordance with or is in contravention of these
rules, may cancel or rescind wholly or in part any action
or proceeding taken or contract entered into by the Trust
regarding such transfer of land or may revise or modify
the order or give any other direction as it may deem fit.
7. A bare perusal of the plaint reflects that the present suit was
filed by the Plaintiff Urban Improvement Trust for cancellation of
the lease deed on the premise that the same was a forged one
and was never issued by the plaintiff-trust. In that view, where
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 06:48:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11813] (5 of 5) [CR-63/2026]
the trust itself has challenged the issuance of the Patta and has
prayed for cancellation of fraudulent documents, definitely Rule
30 of the Rules of 1974 would not come into picture. Herein, the
trust has denied the issuance of the lease deed itself.
8. In view of the above, the order impugned being in
consonance with law, does not deserve any interference. The
revision petitions are hence, dismissed.
9. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
13-18-amit/-
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 06:48:52 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
