The writ jurisdiction is not an appropriate remedy for settling private disputes between family or partners indirectly by challenging orders of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying following reliefs:

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by a writ mandamus of any other appropriate writ order or direction on a writ be issued. Order dated 26.7.2010 passed in appeal No.47/2009 Annexure-12 and order Annexure-7 & 7A dated 4.11.87 be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the respondent No.2 for deciding the same on its merit or this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the record of the aforesaid appeal No. and after hearing the petitioner be pleased to set aside and quashed the aforesaid order vide Annexure-12 & Annexure 7 & 7A passed by respondent No.2 and respondent No.4 or pass such order which Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. A communication dated 04.11.1987 (Annexure-7) was sent by Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Special Category), Jodhpur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Samiti’) to M/s Jamnadass Gangadass & Company–respondent No.5 informing that on the basis of family settlement documents, the godown No.E-11-14 situated in main Mandi Yard is declared to be in the ownership of Smt. Madhu Lohiya wife of Pukhraj Lohiya and the same has been recorded. It is further informed that Smt. Madhu Lohiya wife of Pukhraj Lohiya will be liable to pay the rent, Mandi fees and for any other dispute, if so arise in future.

3. Another communication dated 04.11.1987 (Annexure7A) was also written by the Secretary of the Samiti to respondent No.5 informing that on the basis of family settlement documents, Shop No.B/5 situated in Main Mandi Yard is declared to be in ownership of Pukhraj Lohiya son of Jamnadass Lohiya.

4. Annexure-12 is the order dated 26.07.2010 passed by Director, Agriculture Marketing Board–respondent No.2, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the communications dated 04.11.1987 (Annexures-7 & 7A) has been dismissed.

5. Several grounds have been raised by the petitioner in this writ petition assailing the validity of Annexures-7, 7A and 12. The petitioner also filed several applications along with various documents from time to time and submitted written arguments in support of writ petition on different dates.

6. Arguing the writ petition, the petitioner has contended that Secretary of the Samiti has illegally declared the ownership of respondents Madhu Lohiya (dead) and Pukhraj Lohiya of the godown No.E-11-14 and Shop No.B/5 respectively both situated at main Mandi Yard. It is submitted that the ownership of the above referred godown and shop was in the name of partnership firm. It is further submitted that the said partnership was never dissolved and no such document of this effect has ever been produced by the respondent Madhu Lohiya and Pukhraj Lohiya before the Secretary of the Samiti but the Secretary of the Samiti has converted the ownership of the aforementioned godown and shop in favour of the proprietorship firm of Smt. Madhu Lohiya and Pukhraj Lohiya illegally.

7. Arguments have also been raised by the petitioner to the effect that the so called settlement deed, on the basis of which the Secretary of the Samiti has declared the ownership of respondent – Madhu Lohiya and Pukhraj Lohiya of the godown and shop, was forged one and as such on the basis of the said settlement deed, the action of the Secretary of the Samiti declaring the ownership of respondents Pukhraj Lohiya and Madhu Lohiya of the aforementioned godown and shop is absolutely illegal. It is also alleged that the Director, Agriculture Marketing Board – respondent No.2 without taking into consideration the above facts has illegally dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide impugned order dated 26.07.2010.

8. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may be allowed and the relief prayed for in this writ petition be granted.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – Samiti has vehemently oppo