Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 679 (RAJ)

Abha Kumawat (eniya) v. Commissioner Municipal Board Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh

2019-02-27

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner by way of this writ petition has challenged the order dated 02.05.2017 passed by Additional Director, Local Bodies, Raj. Jaipur whereby the application moved by the petitioner under Section 194(12) of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 for restraining the respondents from releasing sanction for construction in favour of the respondent No. 3 has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an FIR was lodged with regard to the property and the agreement entered into against the respondent and in the final report submitted by the Police, possession of the petitioner has been shown. 3. In view of the sanction for construction has already been granted, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been wrongfully rejected by the Additional Director. 4. This courts finds that the petitioner, after having filed the FIR against the respondent No. 3, wherein final report was submitted by the Police filed a civil suit for specific performance and cancellation of sale deed in favour of the respondent No. 3. The application for temporary injunction was also submitted therewith, however, the civil Court has not passed any order in favour of the petitioner. The Additional Director of the Municipal Corporation has not been impleaded as party to the said civil suit and, therefore, the Municipal Corporation has rightly issued sanction for construction to the respondent No. 3. 5. The view taken by the Additional Director in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner on aforesaid grounds is found to be correct and legal. The petitioner does not have any right on the property and his rights would accrue only after the final disposal of the civil suit filed by him and where, the rights of the parties will be crystallized. Till the same is finalized and registered deed is executed in favour of the petitioner, he would not have any legal right to challenge the orders granting sanction for construction in favour of the respondent No. 3. 6. Accordingly, I find no ground to warrant interference with the order impugned, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.