Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 915 (RAJ)

Gauri Devi v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti

2006-03-22

GOVIND MATHUR

body2006
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By notice dated 24.07.1992 a direction was given by Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur to petitioner Smt. Gauri Devi to remove encroachment made by her in main market yard within a period of 15 days. The instant petition for writ is preferred giving challenge to the aforesaid notice. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jodhpur by a letter dated 10.05.1976 allowed Shri Ganeshmal Gattani (husband of petitioner Smt. Gauri Devi) to run a temporary “dhaba” in main market yard. By a notice dated 110.1983 the husband of petitioner Smt. Gauri Devi was called upon to remove encroachment made by him on the land situated in main mandi yard. The Secretary in the notice dated 110.1983 specifically averred that Shri Ganeshmal Gattani was allowed to run a “dhaba” in main mandi yard but he has subleted the land to M/s Achaldas Meghdas and Company whereon the said company is running its business. 3. An explanation to the notice dated 110.1983 was given by husband of the petitioner on 110.1983, stating therein that he is involved in business of Mishri, Makhana and Patasha as the business of “dhaba” is not viable in the mandi area. The husband of the petitioner denied the fact with regard to subletting of the land by him to M/s Achaldas Meghdas and Company. The Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti thereafter issued a notice impugned instructing petitioner Gauri Devi to remove encroachment from the main mandi yard. 4. While giving challenge to the notice dated 24.07.1992 it is contended by petitioner Smt. Gauri Devi that after death of her husband Shri Ganeshmal Gattani she is involved in the business of making of Mishri, Makhana and Patasha etc. due to non-viability of “dhaba”. The petitioners specifically denied in Para 13 of the writ petition that the premises in question is sublet to M/s Achaldas Meghdas and Company. It is emphasised by the petitioners that as a matter of fact the premises in question is in occupation of them and is being used in trading of Mishri, Makhana and Patasha etc. 5. The petitioners specifically denied in Para 13 of the writ petition that the premises in question is sublet to M/s Achaldas Meghdas and Company. It is emphasised by the petitioners that as a matter of fact the premises in question is in occupation of them and is being used in trading of Mishri, Makhana and Patasha etc. 5. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that on inspection it was found that the petitioners have made pucca construction in a huge part of land and the same was sublet to M/s Achaldas Meghdas and Company which is involved in the trading of Mishri, Makhana and Patasha etc. According to the respondents the petitioners are having no right to retain the land where they have raised pucca construction without any authority of law. 6. Petitioner Smt. Gauri Devi on 16.08.2005 filed an additional affidavit therein too she has said that she herself is doing business after death of her husband through a partnership firm. She also stated on oath that she is having possession over the land measuring 40x40 and she has invested huge amount in raising construction thereon. From the facts averred in the writ petition and the additional affidavit sworn-in by petitioner Smt. Gauri Devi it is not at all in dispute that the petitioners are having possession over the land measuring at least 40 x 40 in main mandi area. It is also admitted that the petitioners have raised pucca construction thereon and Smt. Gauri Devi herself is involved in trading of Mishri, Makhana and patasha etc. It is also admitted that the Smt. Gauri is a partner of a firm in the name of M/s. Achaldas Meghdas and Company. Husband of Smt. Gauri was allowed to run a “dhaba” on temporary basis but in due course a pucca construction was raised on a huge part of land unauthorisedly. Smt. Gauri Devi is having no licence to run a business on the land in question in the main mandi area. The petitioners without any sanction of law have raised construction and are involved in trading of a business other than running a “dhaba”. Such unauthorised occupation over the land and trading in mandi area cannot be permitted. 7. Smt. Gauri Devi is having no licence to run a business on the land in question in the main mandi area. The petitioners without any sanction of law have raised construction and are involved in trading of a business other than running a “dhaba”. Such unauthorised occupation over the land and trading in mandi area cannot be permitted. 7. It is pertinent to note that in the writ petition the petitioners nowhere averred that they are involved in trading with a partnership firm. The petitioner in Para 13 of the petition denied that the premises in question is subleted to M/s Achaldas Meghdas and Company but while stating so too it is not disclosed by the petitioners that the Petitioner No. 1 is a partner of firm running business from the premises in question. The conduct of the petitioners in totality of facts of this case is highly deplorable. Be that as it may, the petitioners are having no right to retain possession over the land in question being treaspassers. I do not find any illegality in the notice impugned. 8. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.