[2025:RJ-JD:44073]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7524/2016

Bheru Lal S/o Shri Nang Ji, By Caste Kala, aged about 64 years, presently residing at Plot No. 85, House No. 576, Surya Nagar,

Titardi, Tehsil-Girwa, District-Udaipur Raj.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. The Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur.

2. The Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur

3. Smt. Pravina Solanki W/o Shri Vasu dev Solanki, By Caste

Darji, R/o Near Navin Adarsh Vidhya Mandir, Nagori Ghate

Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Godara

Ms. Alka Pandey

Ms. Surbhi Trivedi for

Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deelip Kawadia

Ms. Nidhi Singhvi Mr. V.D. Gaur for

Mr. O.P. Mehta

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

08/10/2025

1. The present petition has been filed aggrieved of orders dated 17.10.2013 (Annex.3) and 22.12.2015 (Annex.5) as passed by the Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (UIT) and the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur respectively. Vide order dated 17.10.2013, the Tehsildar directed the petitioner to remove his encroachment/illegal construction within a period of three days and in non compliance thereof, the UIT was directed to demolish

the same and take the property in its possession.

2. Order dated 17.10.2013 was challenged by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur, who, vide order

dated 22.12.2015, while rejecting the appeal, maintained order dated 17.10.2013.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite reply in the proceedings before the Tehsildar been filed, the Tehsildar erroneously held that no reply/documents were filed by the petitioner and hence, he proceeded ex parte.

4. Counsel further submits that the petitioner had preferred a civil suit against the respondent UIT qua the same land in question and the Civil Court had passed interim order dated 03.03.2014 directing to maintain status quo regarding the property in question. Once an interim order was passed by a Civil Court, the Tehsildar or the Divisional Commissioner could not have proceeded further in the matter.

5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent UIT submits that the petitioner never appeared before the Tehsildar nor did he file any reply/document. Therefore, the Tehsildar had correctly proceeded ex parte.

6. So far as the reply as averred by the petitioner to have been filed is concerned, the same does not pertain to proceedings of the present matter (Case No.20/28 of 2012) but pertains to some other matter being Case No.38/2013.

7. So far as the interim order in civil suit is concerned, counsel submits that the same was qua Plot No.85 and the present proceedings pertains to Plot No.23. Both the plots being distinct properties, interim order pertaining to Plot No.85 would not apply to the present matter which pertains to Plot No.23 and hence, orders impugned do not deserve any interference.

8. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record.

9. The first issue is - Whether the petitioner filed his reply in the proceedings before the Tehsildar?

10. A bare perusal of the order-sheets (Annexure-6) of the proceedings before the Tehsildar reflect that the notices were first issued on 24.02.2012. Annexure-7, the report of the process server on the said notice reflects that the notice was affixed on the house of the petitioner in presence of two independent witnesses, one being the tenant of the petitioner. However, despite the said service when none appeared, the notices were again directed to be issued on 30.04.2012, again on 29.08.2012 and further again on 03.07.2013. Vide order dated 08.08.2013, fresh address of the petitioner was called from the Patwari concerned and again fresh notices were directed to be issued. As per the documents placed on record, all the said notices were served in terms of law.

11. Ultimately, some counsel put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner on 17.09.2013 and prayed for time to file documents. However on the next date i.e. 08.10.2013, no document was filed.