Advocates:
['MANOJ BHANDARI', 'SUNIL BENIWAL', '', 'SS LADRECHA AAG']

1

M/s Sameja Housing Private Limited Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.

(S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.679/15)

Dated:- 19.2.15.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

Mr. Manoj Bhandari, for the petitioners.

Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, Additional Advocate General assisted by

Mr. Vikas Choudhary, for the respondents no.1,2, 4 & 5.

Mr. Sunil Beniwal, for the respondent no.3.

1.

This petition is directed against order dated 22.12.14

passed by the Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Bikaner,

cancelling the construction permission granted to the petitioner.

That apart, the seizure of the building by the Municipal

Corporation, Bikaner, vide order dated 22.12.14 is also

impugned in the present petition.

2.

The relevant facts are that the petitioner, a private limited

company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged

in real estate business , preferred an application before the

Municipal Corporation, Bikaner, for the change of the land use

from residential to commercial of the land ad measuring

40x125.9 sq. ft. owned by it situated at Near Railway Crossing,

Bikaner. On the said application, objections were invited by the

Municipal Corporation by way of public notice dated 29.5.12

published in Rajasthan Patrika and Dainik Rashtradoot on

30.5.12. The objections were decided by the Municipal

Corporation and thereafter, vide communication dated 26.9.12,

the matter was sent for technical report to Senior Town Planner.

The Senior Town Planner vide communication dated 15.2.13,

2

recommended for conversion of the land for commercial purpose

on certain conditions. The Land Conversion Committee of the

Municipal Corporation in its meeting held on 23.7.13 resolved to

convert the land for commercial use. The petitioner deposited

the conversion charges on 27.9.13 and pursuant thereto,

conversion order dated 14.10.13 was issued by the

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bikaner. On 12.12.13, the

petitioner preferred an application seeking permission to raise

construction. In the meantime, the petitioner applied for

amendment in the conversion order and accordingly, by a

corrigendum dated 20.3.14 issued by the Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation,Bikaner, the conversion order was

amended.

3.

It is averred that petitioner later came to know that the

plot in question falls within the jurisdiction of UIT, Bikaner and

therefore, the petitioner made an application to the UIT, Bikaner

seeking permission for raising construction. The permission

applied for was granted vide order dated 9.5.14 issued by the

Deputy Town Planner, UIT, Bikaner. Pursuant to the permission

granted by the UIT, the petitioner proceeded to raise

construction. At this stage, the petitioner was served with the

notice dated 14.11.14 issued by the Commissioner, Municipal

Corporation, Bikaner directing the petitioner to stop the

construction sought to be raised without permission being

granted by the Municipal Corporation. In response to the notice,

the petitioner vide communication dated 18.11.14 clarified that

3

the construction is being raised by it pursuant to the permission

granted by the UIT, Bikaner. The construction permission

granted in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 9.5.14 was

cancelled by the UIT, Bikaner vide order dated 22.12.14 and vide

yet another order dated 22.12.14, issued by the Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation, Bikaner, the petitioner's building under

construction was taken possession of and seized. Hence, this

petition.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended

that as per the order dated 28.11.86, issued by the

Administrator of then Municipal Council, Bikaner, the area

outside the four walls of the city falls within the jurisdiction of

UIT,Bikaner and therefore, sanction granted in its favour by the

UIT, Bikaner for raising construction cannot be faulted w