Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Bajrang Stone Art – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 835, 1384, 1401, 1402, 1441, 1442, 1443, 1470, 1472, 1475, 1524, 1525, 1527, 5440, 5443 of 2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11617 of 2020
Decided On : 17-04-2023
Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 – Section 160 - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 25/26 - Petitioner-firm has assailed validity and propriety of impugned order dated issued by respondent no. 3 directing seizure of stone cutter machine being used by petitioner-firm in pursuance of notice dated issued by respondent no. 4 on ground that same is being illegally and unauthorizedly used on residential/agricultural land - He further contends that petitioner-firm had also applied for grant of necessary consent in order to establish industry, operation or process or any treatment and disposal system - Whether before or after erection of buildings and person or authority by whom or at whose expense such amenities are to be provided.
Finding of Court :
Counsel for petitioner is not in a position to dispute that land in-question is earmarked in master-plan as residential land, however, submits that after passing of impugned order dated - Petitioner-firm has preferred an application before Jodhpur Development Authority, for conversion of land use from residential use to commercial use - Counsel for respondent vehemently opposes submissions so made by counsel for petitioner and submits that once land in-question is earmarked as residential land in master-plan, then said land cannot be converted from residential use to commercial use - Court after hearing counsel for parties; perusing material available on record; facts and circumstances of case as well as taking into consideration judgment - Court observes that once land in-question has been earmarked for residential purpose in master plan, then petitioner-firm, which has illegally and unauthorizedly installed stone cutter machine on land in-question, could not have utilized land for commercial activities.
Result : Writ petition dismissed
ORDER :
1. All these writ petitions involves common/identical issue for adjudication by this Court, thus, are being decided by a common order.
2. These writ petitions have been filed in sum and substance for the following reliefs:
“(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, impugned Order dated 07.10.2020 (Annx.3) issued by the respondent No. 3 Authorized Officer-cum Deputy Commissioner (West). Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur as well as Notice dated 13.02.2020 (Annx.2) issued by the respondent No. 4 Tehsildar (West), Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur as also entire proceedings as carried out pursuant thereto, may kindly be declared illegal and accordingly, be quashed and set aside.
(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to consider the application for change of land use submitted by the petitioner-firm and accordingly. grant necessary permission to this effect in favour of the petitioner-firm after depositing the necessary charges forthwith.
(iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may also kindly be directed to allow the petitioner-firm to carry out its business/operate the stone cutter unit on the plot in question forthwith and not to take any coercive action against the petitioner-firm in future as well.
(iv) Any other appropriate order, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
(v) Cost of the writ petition may also please be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
3. The petitioner-firm is engaged in the business of stone cutting.
4. The petitioner-firm has assailed validity and propriety of impugned order dated 07.10.2020 issued by the respondent no. 3 directing seizure of stone cutter machine being used by the petitioner-firm in pursuance of notice dated 13.02.2020 issued by the respondent no. 4 on the ground that the same is being illegally and unauthorizedly used on residential/agricultural land.
5. It has been asserted in the writ petition that without conducting any enquiry in accordance with law and without affording any opportunity of personal hearing and without considering reply to notice dated 13.02.2020, impugned order dated 07.10.2020 has been passed by the respondent no. 3.
6. It has been further stated in the writ petition that the petitioner-firm has already applied for conversion/change of land use and is ready to deposit necessary charges and the issue is pending consideration before the respondent-JDA.
7. Counsel for the petitioner contends that due permission for construction; installation of stone cutter machine has been taken by petitioner-firm and the stone cutter unit is established since long time.
8. He further contends that petitioner-firm had also applied for grant of necessary consent in order to establish industry, operation or process or any treatment and disposal system under Section 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 before the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Jodhpur and requisite consent to establish industry has been accorded by the competent authority. The petitioner-firm has also applied for grant of necessary VAT & GST registration before the competent authorities, pursuant to which, requisite VAT & GST registration certificate were also issued in favour of the petitioner-firm by the concerned Authority.
9. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that electricity connection for commercial purpose was duly granted to the petitioner-firm. The petitioner-firm also moved application in prescribed proforma before the respondent-JDA for conversion/change of land use and the same is pending consideration.
10. Counsel for the petitioner contends that a complaint was filed on Rajasthan Sampark Web Portal on 31.12.2019 alleging illegal operation of stone cutter units on residential land and on the basis of said complaint, respondent no. 4 issued notice dated
Accrued rights from previous land use approvals must be respected despite new regulations; Town Planner's jurisdiction to deny building plan approval was not established.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 20(2) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, if the land is not acquired within the specified period, the....
Point of law : Right of a person to construct residential houses in the residential area is a valuable right. The said right can only be regulated in terms of a regulatory statute but unless there ex....
The court emphasized that the petitioner should approach the appropriate authority if an adverse order is passed by the Government, as the matter is pending with the Government.
existence of an alternative remedy whether adequate or not, does not alter the fundamentally discretionary nature of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction and, therefore, does not create an absolute bar....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
