[2025:RJ-JD:49013]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Writ Misc Application No. 382/2025 M/s Supertech Properties Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Address Behind Super Sales Corporation, Jal Chakki, Kankroli, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan, Through Its Authorized Representative Naresh Chandel S/o Shri Giriraj Chandel, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Jal Chakki, Kankroli, District Rajsamand.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur Through Its Secretary

3. Chairman, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.

4. Commissioner, Udaipur Development Authority, Udaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Samyak Dalal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Purohit Mr. Hanuman Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

13/11/2025

1. The present miscellaneous application is filed seeking correction of errors relating to following aspects:

i. Deletion of issues relating to cancellation of allotment and lease deeds and findings thereon (as referred in para- 2, 7, 8 & 16) when such issues were not subject matter.

ii. Substitution of words “letter dt.18.07.2012(Annex.12)” in replace of “proceedings dt.29.10.2021 (Annex.22) in Para-

19).

iii.Restriction of facts and contentions relating to issue of sub-division and re-constitution of plots and findings thereon as referred in para-16, 37.1, 38 to three writ Petition in the batch i.e. Smt. Shanta Devi vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10049/2024 & 10074/2024) and Smt. Geeta Agarwal vs. Udaipur Development Authority & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10047/2024) and in para 40 phrase “sub-division and reconstitution” may be modified.

iv. Deletion of facts and contentions relating to audit (as referred in para-3, 5, 6, 11, 21 & 22) and findings thereon (as referred in para-35) as they were not in issue.

v. Deletion of words in para 28 “The Government also accorded permission for the allotment of government land in 2010.”, as such an issue was not subject matter of the present writ petition.

vi.Alteration of Section-90 A to Section-90 B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1956’) in para- 29 & 30.

2. Dealing with first error, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the present batch of writ petitions, there were no cancellation of allotments and lease deeds whereas such issues were there in other batch of writ petitions which batch was also disposed of along with present batch, simultaneously. Such facts were mistakenly referred in the common judgment of present batch. Thus, it is an error and requires correction.

3. Dealing with the second error, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submit that in para 19 of the judgment the proceeding dated 29.10.2021 (Annex.22) is referred instead of the letter dated 18.07.2012 (Annex. 12) which is pure typographical error.

4. Dealing with the third error, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the contention and finding related to sub-division and re-constitution of plots reflected in paras 16, 37.1, 38 & 40 of the judgment are not common in all writ petitions in the common judgment but they must be confined to three writ petitions i.e. Smt. Shanta Devi vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10049/2024 & 10074/2024) and Smt. Geeta Agarwal vs. Udaipur Development Authority & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10047/2024).

5. Dealing with the fourth error, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the present batch of writ petitions no audit was conducted and there was no such issue in the present cases but it was an issue in other batch of writ petitions which batch was disposed of along with present batch, simultaneously. Such facts and findings were mistakenly referred