Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 380 (RAJ)

Mannalal v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-17

MUNNURI LAXMAN

body2025
ORDER : (MUNNURI LAXMAN, J.) 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the orders dated 27.02.2020 passed by the Tehsildar, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur and order dated 21.05.2024 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur and consequential orders dated 24.06.2024 & 25.06.2024 passed by the respondent authorities. 2. The Tehsildar, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur (respondent No.4) had issued notice under Section 91-A of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act , 1959 causing for removal of structure which was raised without permission and without maintaining setback. The petitioner responded to the show cause notice and after hearing the parties, an order dated 27.02.2020 was passed by the respondent No.4. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority had also confirmed the order passed by the respondent No.4 vide order dated 21.05.2024. Subsequently, the consequential orders were also drawn which were also under challenge. 3. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned orders were not in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act and were further drawn at the behest of the brother of the petitioner. According to him these orders are unsustainable. He further contended that the authorities should have considered the amended proviso under Section 32 of the Udaipur Development Authority Act , 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2023’) which enables the person who raised the construction without permission, to make an application for retention and the authority under the Act is obligated to consider such a representation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur has contended that the orders of the original authorities have been drawn under Section 91A of the Act of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act , 1959. According to him, the constructions raised is without permission and also they are not maintaining the setback conditions contained under regulations. It is also undisputed that Section 32 of the Act of 2023 enable the parties to make an application for retention of illegal structure, if, they are in accordance with the rules and regulations. If such application has been filed, the authorities should consider such representation. According to him, the impugned orders thus requires no interference. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that the land on which the structure was raised are joint and undivided land. If such application has been filed, the authorities should consider such representation. According to him, the impugned orders thus requires no interference. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that the land on which the structure was raised are joint and undivided land. According to him he has also interest over such land, therefore, the petitioner cannot raised any structure on such land. 6. Undisputed fact in the present case is that the constructions were raised without any permission. The impugned orders as well as the show cause notice do not clearly indicates the extent of violation in maintaining the setback. It is undisputed fact that Section 32 (3) of the Act of 2023 enable the party who raised the construction without permission without maintaining the setback to make an application before the competent authority for allowing to retain which they illegally made. When such application is filed the authorities are under obligation to consider the application in accordance with the rules and regulations prevailing. 7. The contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 cannot be decided in the present proceedings. The liberty is given to both the parties to make appropriate stand before the appropriate authority. 8. This Court finds no illegality/interference in the impugned orders. In the result, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the impugned orders dated 27.02.2020 & 21.05.2024 do not requires any interference. The writ petitioner is given liberty to make an application under Section 32(3) of the Act of 2023 to the appropriate authority whereunder the retention of the structure which they have constructed. The authorities are directed to consider such application on its own merits in terms of the rules and regulations while duly considering all the objections. Until the applications for retention are decided the consequential proceedings drawn in pursuance of the order impugned required to be unexecuted. 9. The petitioners are directed not to raise any further new structure until the decision is made on such application.