[2026:RJ-JP:6639]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9477/2024 Niranjan Lal Saini S/o Shri Dhanna Lal Saini, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Vijay Mandir Road, Shikrai Bas, Alwar Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary To The Government, Urban Improvement Department, Secretariat Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Chairman / Collector Urban Improvement Trust, Urban Improvement Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Alwar.

3. The Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Urban Improvement Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Alwar.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Mathur For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

12/02/2026

1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the order dated 13.04.2023, whereby the representation submitted by the petitioner, was rejected.

2. By the impugned order, the representation of the petitioner for acceptance of due amount for allotment with prayer for restoration of the allotment, was rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case are that through a lottery, the petitioner was allotted a residential plot bearing No. A/0116 at Hasan Khan Mewat Nagar, Alwar by UIT, Alwar vide allotment letter dated 08.06.1988. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment, the petitioner was to deposit certain amount before

15.10.1988, but he failed to do so. The UIT, in its meeting dated 16.04.1991, resolved that cases wherein there is a default of payment and two years have not elapsed, in those cases, due amount may be received alongwith penalty and interest and the allotment may be restored. In view of the resolution dated 16.04.1991, the petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3963/2016 with the prayer for acceptance of money and to restore the allotment in light of the resolution dated 16.04.1991.

The Court, vide order dated 18.05.2016, dismissed the writ petition as the challenge was found to be with inordinate delay of 25 years for which no adequate and satisfactory reason were proffered.

Against the order passed by the Single Judge, the petitioner preferred D.B. Civil Appeal, which was also dismissed, and thereafter, he preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.

14007/2017.

The Hon'ble Apex Court, vide order dated 04.05.2017, dismissed the SLP and liberty was given to the petitioner to approach the authorities and if the authorities were satisfied, they may allot the plot to the petitioner.

In pursuance to order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent authorities which was rejected by the impugned order dated 13.04.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to deposit the total due amount and UIT had also resolved in its meeting dated 16.04.1991 to accept the amount by the defaulters and to restore the allotments.

5. On perusal of the rejection order as well as the resolution dated 16.04.1991, it is revealed that the UIT decided to accept the amount and to restore the allotment only in those cases where the default was of less than two years. In the case of the petitioner, the default is more than two years. The other factor, of which, this Court is conscious, is that the petitioner has initially approached the Court after an inordinate delay of 25 years and the issue of delay has not been interfered up to the Apex Court.

6. Having gone through the reasons given in the order of rejection of the representation of the petitioner and taking into consideration the facts of this case as stated above, the Court finds no error in the impugned order. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.

7. Stay application as well as pending application/s, if any, also stand/s disposed.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J Gaurav Srivastava /7