Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1309 (RAJ)

Jyoti Thakrani v. Divisional Commissioner

2016-09-08

VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

body2016
ORDER : Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. 1. The matter comes up on I.A. No. 21059/2016, with a prayer to dispose of the writ application in the light of the opinion of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anukampa Avas Vikas Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.: 2009 (3) RLW 2295. The counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, has not filed any response to the application. 2. Indisputably, the legal position as declared in the case of Anukampa Avas Vikas Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) (supra), is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. However, he submits that opinion is not applicable to the facts of the instant case at hand. 3. Having heard, the learned counsel for the parties and on a glance of the impugned order dated 30th August, 2010, it is evident that the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, while adjudicating upon the appeal, which was instituted after an inordinate delay of above 6 years, did interfere with the issue of regularization, though observed that whether the plot of land in dispute was purchased from the Custodian Department by the respondent No. 2 or not? could not be adjudicated upon in absence of the original or certified copies of the relevant documents. Therefore, he left it to open for adjudication by the Competent Court of law. 4. In the case of Anukampa Avas Vikas Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on a survey of various opinions of the Supreme Court, held that the normal course open for a party for cancellation of registered sale/lease deed is to file a civil suit for cancellation. At this juncture, it will be relevant to consider the text of para 50 and 52 of the judgment aforesaid, which read thus. "(50). In the instant case, before cancellation of the Registry, no notice was given to the petitioners and further the other important fact of the case is that the Registry of the sale/lease deed was executed as per the directions of this Court in the earlier writ petition to decide the representation, therefore, the objection of alternative remedy in such cases is wholly untenable. (ii) Answer to Question No. 2" (52). A party to the registry of sale/lease deed has no right to cancel the same and the normal course open is to file a civil suit for cancellation. (ii) Answer to Question No. 2" (52). A party to the registry of sale/lease deed has no right to cancel the same and the normal course open is to file a civil suit for cancellation. In case the sale is effected in violation of some statutory mandatory provision of law, consequence given in the statute will be taken into consideration even then show cause notice is necessary as the sale stands complete as soon as the auction is knocked down in favour of the party." 5. A glance of the impugned order dated 30th August, 2010, would reveal that the issue of regularization as adjudicated upon against the petitioner, would have a natural consequence on the registered sale deed dated 3rd October, 2008, executed in her favour by Mahindra Kumar Sen. It is not disputed that respondent-Murli Dhar Prashar, has not instituted any proceedings before the jurisdictional Court as a consequence of impugned order dated 30th August, 2010. 6. Be that as it may, for the reasons aforesaid, the application (I.A. No. 21059/2016) instituted on behalf of the petitioner for disposal of the writ application in terms of the opinion of this Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anukampa Avas Vikas Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) (supra); is hereby allowed. 7. The writ application stands disposed off in terms of the opinion of this Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anukampa Avas Vikas Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) (supra). 8. The order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer, dated 30.8.2010 (Annexure-1), is hereby quashed and set aside.