Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1106 (RAJ)

Vandana Goyal v. State of Rajasthan

2004-08-04

K.K.ACHARYA, N.N.MATHUR

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. 1. The instant special appeal arises out of a civil suit pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mount Abu, Camp Abu Road. The trial court rejected the application of the plaintiff-appellant for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. 2. Having further failed before the Additional District Judge, Abu Road, District Sirohi in appeal and before the learned Single Judge of this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the appellant has approached to this Court in fourth forum. 3. The subject matter of the suit is that a 6828.24 Sq. meter land in Khasra Nos. 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91 & 92 of Village Achalgarh, District Abu Road falls within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat, Orian but by notification dated 24.10.81 issued by the State Government, it fails within the urban area of Mount Abu declared by the State Government under the provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act. The area covers 12 revenue villages, which includes Achalgarh. A master plan for the area has been sanctioned by the order of the State Government dated 13.2.90, which falls within the declared green belt area. There has also been an injunction against raising the construction by the orders of the Apex Court. An agricultural land failing in the said area can be used for the residential and commercial purposes by way of conversion only in accordance with the provisions of Conversion of Land Rules, 1981. It is not in dispute that the appellant has not made any application under the said Rules for the conversion of the land. The learned counsel has referred to certain proceedings for the conversion of land before the Collector, Sirohi and subsequently, orders of the Revenue Appellate Authority on an application filed by him under the Land Conversion Rules of 1992, which has no application to the subject area. All these aspects have been dealt with in detail by the trial court while rejecting the application of the plaintiff-appellant under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 CPC. The appeal against the said order has been dismissed by an elaborate order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Abu Road. All these aspects have been dealt with in detail by the trial court while rejecting the application of the plaintiff-appellant under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 CPC. The appeal against the said order has been dismissed by an elaborate order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Abu Road. The various contentions raised by the appellant have been elaborately discussed and rejected by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. All the three courts have concurrently found no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. As far as balance of convenience is concerned, it is stated by the learned counsel that the resort has been developed on the subject area and it is almost at completion. It appears that at one stage, the trial court granted injunction, which continued for five days. The interim order was vacated. It is difficult to conceive that within a period of five days, the plaintiff completed the entire construction. 5. It has been repeatedly argued that directions may be given to the Collector to comply with the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 8.12.98 to decide the application for conversion of the land. No such direction can be given in the instant appeal. In fact, the appellants have filed an application for conversion of land under the Lard Conversion Rules, 1992, which has no application in the instant case. The Municipal Board, Abu Road has deliberately not been impleaded as defendant in the suit. In all, it is stated that the area falls within the municipal limits of Mount Abu in view of the notification referred to above, as such, any direction for the construction can be given by the Municipal Board and not by the Gram Panchayat. The Municipal Board can also not give any direction for construction unless the conversion of agricultural land is granted by the competent authority under the Rules of 1981.No interference is warranted with the order of the learned Single Judge.The Special appeal stands dismissed.Special Appeal Allowed. *******