Back
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, KULDEEP MATHUR
Ujjwal Lavti W/o Shri Piyush Lavti – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur – Respondent
ORDER :
Kuldeep Mathur, J.
This petition styled as Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner who is a Municipal Councilor of Municipal Council Nathdwara praying for the following reliefs:-
i. the allotment so sought to be made in favour of the private body-Tatpadam Upvan Private Limited (respondent No.4) in Khasra No.165 of village Nathuwas and Khasras No.492, 645 and 646 of village Upli Odan for construction of an Amusement Park; and allotment sought to be made in favour of Miraj Developers Limited (respondent No.5) in Khasras No.492, 646, 647 and 648 of revenue village Upli Odan, situated on 120’ road in lieu of amount spent by the said Company for construction of Iconic Gate in Nathdwara may kindly be quashed and set aside;
ii. the respondent/State may be further directed to initiate proper enquiry against the local body and to take appropriate action against the erring officials;
iii. that all the proceedings drawn in favour of the respondents No.4 and 5 may kindly be quashed and set aside;
iv. any other appropriate relief (s)
A public interest litigation cannot be used by a petitioner who previously supported the actions being challenged, as it constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.
before making the allotment the State Authorities were required to set apart the land for access to the lands of the khatedar tenants, their dhani and the public utilities and the entries
The court established that public interest litigations are subject to the principle of laches, and unexplained delays can result in dismissal regardless of the merits of the case.
The allotment of land to the respondent companies was illegal and violative of the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and the Rules made thereunder.
Review Jurisdiction – An error apparent on face of record is a ground for invoking review jurisdiction – An error apparent on face of record is one when in comprehending such error, elaborate reasoni....
Provisions of the Act No.30 of 2013 cannot be clubbed with the APMRUDA Act, 2016 and the Rules, 2016.
Petitioners cannot assert rights for land allotments when their claims are contingent on another party's pending applications, especially after such approvals have expired.
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
