Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, MUNNURI LAXMAN, JJ.
Kamla Bai W/o Sh. Chhogalal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Vallabhnagar, Tehsil – Respondent
ORDER :
I.A. No.1/2023:
Heard on application for condonation of delay.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 96 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on merit.
2. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 10.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby, the learned Single Judge has upset the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue (Revenue Appellate Authority), set aside the order and allowed petition.
3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case giving rise to the appeal are that one Babu Lal Nagori was granted a lease of a parcel of land for setting up of an industrial unit on 13.02.1987 under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Industrial Areas Allotment) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “Allotment Rules of 1959”). In course of time, the said Babu Lal Nagori sold the land by a registered sale-deed in favour of the appellant- Kamla Bai on 08.11.1996. The District Collector, Udaipur, however, sent a notice on 19.07.2006 proposing to cancel the lease on the ground that the indu
The court affirmed that a lease cancellation under the Allotment Rules is valid if the industrial unit is not established within two years, and any transfer without permission is void.
The principle of limitation is fundamental in administrative proceedings, and actions taken after substantial delays are unsustainable under law.
Once the terms and conditions of a lease are accepted, the party cannot challenge them. The application of statutory provisions, such as Rule 9(1) of the JMMC Rules, must be adhered to in determining....
The auction sale was declared illegal due to non-compliance with mandatory notice requirements, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to statutory procedures in public auctions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the provisions of review jurisdiction and ensuring proper consideration of the merits of a case before allowing a rev....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appeal under Section 20 of the Act of 1975 was not maintainable as the order was passed under Section 9-A, which was non-appealable. The j....
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Ravish Agrawal, Sanjay Agrawal For the Respondent : Pushpendra Yadav, R. N. Singh, Akshay Pawar
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
