Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1117 (RAJ)

Mahendra Kumar Mehta v. State

2008-04-23

VINEET KOTHARI

body2008
Judgment Hon'ble KOTHARI, J.—Heard learned counsels. 2. By these writ petitions, the petitioners approached this Court with the following prayers:- “(i) By an appropriate writ, direction or order, the respondent U.I.T. may be directed to not to cancel the lease deed executed in favour of the petitioner. (ii) By an appropriate writ, direction or order, respondent U.I.T. may be restrained from taking over the possession of the land from the petitioner and may be directed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession of land. (iii) By an appropriate writ direction or order, the respondents may further be restrained from interfering with the construction being raised by the petitioner on the land in question and further by an appropriate order, the respondents may be restrained from demolishing the construction already raised by the petitioner on the land in question. (iv) Cost of the writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner. (v) Any other appropriate direction or order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.” 3. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition taking stand in the matter that though the allotment of plot in question by UIT in favour of the petitioners was regularized under Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act yet since according to the State the other land in question fell in tank belt area, the State has preferred an appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur against the order passed by the authorized officer of UIT under Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and the said appeal is still pending before the said competent authority. 4. The petitioners approached this Court, it appears, on the basis of apprehension that the UIT may cancel the lease deed executed in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that no such action is envisaged at the present stage against the petitioners. However, if the proceeding in an appeal against the order passed under Section 90B of the Act in favour of the petitioner is pending before the competent authority, the petitioners are at liberty to join those proceedings and make their submissions and raise the appropriate objections before the said authority. 5. However, if the proceeding in an appeal against the order passed under Section 90B of the Act in favour of the petitioner is pending before the competent authority, the petitioners are at liberty to join those proceedings and make their submissions and raise the appropriate objections before the said authority. 5. This Court had directed the respondents UIT and Collector, Udaipur to file additional affidavits by the order dated 13.3.2008 to apprise the Court, about the progress made in the investigation against the erring officials, who had passed the regularization order under Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Learned counsel for the respondent UIT submits that by way of additional affidavit filed in the Court they have stated that except the report dated 14th June, 2005 filed by the DIG of Police (Special Vigilance Cell), Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur addressed to the Dy. Secretary, Chief Minister, Officer Jaipur no further investigation has been made nor any further report has been filed so far in the matter and, therefore, no action has been taken or initiated against any officials in these matters at the level of UIT. 6. This is not in dispute that the proceedings under Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act are pending in appeal before the competent forum namely Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur and it is needless to say that the petitioners would be free to raise their objection, if any, before such authority. If the petitioners have not already been made party to these proceedings, the said appellate authority shall give appropriate notice to the persons effected by these proceedings and there upon such persons including the present petitioners shall be at liberty to raise their objections before the said authority. Since at the present stage, the respondent UIT is not taking any action against the petitioners in the matter the apprehension of the petitioners to approach this Court at this stage appears to be unfounded. 7. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to Appellate Authority namely Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in this regard and then pass appropriate orders within a period of six months from today. 8. These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.