Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2013 (RAJ)

Bharat Tractors Pvt. Ltd. v. State

2005-08-02

N.P.GUPTA

body2005
Judgment N.P. Gupta, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The case of the petitioner is, that after obtaining the permission from the Municipality, the construction was raised, while the respondents No. 2 has given notice, alleging that the construction is contrary to the Master plan and, therefore, it should be removed. According to the petitioner, in the Master Plan, land use is commercial one, and, therefore, there is no violation of Master Plan, and the notice is bad. It was also contended; that the petitioner has already applied to the Municipality, respondent No. 3 for conversion of land, and the matter is pending there, and since the respondent No. 2 has no authority to call upon the petitioner to remove the construction, as the land is not within their jurisdiction, this writ has been filed. 3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents No. 2 has contended, that the land is within their jurisdiction. It was pointed out, that a Patta with respect to the land which is adjoining the land, on the East, was granted to the leaser of the petitioner by respondent No. 2 itself on 27.05.2003 vide Patta Annexure-R/2, enclosed with the site plan. Thus, if construction was desired to be raised by the petitioner, permission was required to be obtained from respondent No. 2, and was required to be raised in accordance with permission, or the law. It was also pointed out, that according to Annexure R/1, which is Patta issued in favour of predecessor of lesser of petitioner, land was given for residential purposes, the permission said to have been obtained, being Annexure-3, is also for residential purpose, but then the construction raised, is for commercial purpose, which is contrary to law, so also the permission, and the purpose, for which Patta was granted, and, therefore, respondent No. 2 has rightly issued notices. The other submission made is, that the petitioner is only lessee, and since lesser has not filed the writ petition, the petitioner has no locus-standi to maintain the present writ petition. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, vide order dated 111.2003, it was directed to the State Government, to clarify, as to whether the land in question falls within the jurisdiction of UIT or Municipality. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, vide order dated 111.2003, it was directed to the State Government, to clarify, as to whether the land in question falls within the jurisdiction of UIT or Municipality. Accordingly, the matter was clarified, by filing factual report by the State Government, enclosing therewith the proceedings held in that regard, and it has been reported, that land falls within the jurisdiction of UIT. 5. From the perusal of this factual report, and the communication of the Collector, it is clear, that the land falls within the jurisdiction of UIT. However, for the present purpose, there are two conflicting aspects of the matter, one being, that the petitioner is only a lessee who is not entitled to maintain the present writ petition, while the other aspect is, that notices Annexures-10 and 14 proceed on the basis, that the land, according, to master plan, is for residential purpose, while it is being used for commercial purpose, i.e., contrary to the master plan, but then it is not in dispute, that master plan has been amended, and the land, according to master plan, is for commercial purpose. 6. In these circumstances, instead of taking a hyper technical view, I think it appropriate, to quash Annexures-10 and 14, on the limited ground, that they proceed on the basis, that construction is in violation of master plan, while according to master plan, land is for commercial purposes. 7. However, it is clarified, that notwithstanding this order of this Court, quashing Annexures-10 and 14, it will be open to the UIT, to proceed against the person concerned, in accordance with law, for any violation, that may have made by person concerned, in the matter of raising construction. The writ petition is, accordingly disposed of .