SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT PRINCIPAL SEAT JODHPUR
DWARKESH PHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJ. and ORS – Respondent
CW 9982/2010



Advocates:
['PRADEEP SHAH', '', 'SANDEEP SHAH', 'P SHAH', 'MUKUL SINGHVI AGC']

DWARKESH PHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

(S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9982/10)

1

DWARKESH PHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

(S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9982/10)

Dated:- 15.4.14

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

Mr. Sandeep Shah, for the petitioner.

Mr.Narendra Singh Rajpurohit, Additional Government Counsel.

1.

This writ petition is preferred by the petitioner aggrieved

by the action of the respondents in refusing to allot the land to it

for industrial purpose on the ground that the proposed land falls

within the periphery limit of Bhilwara City. The proceedings

taken by the respondents regarding refund of the amount

already deposited by the petitioner is also impugned in the writ

petition. The petitioner has further prayed that the respondents

be directed to issue allotment order in its favour in respect of

plot no. 1 & 2 measuring 48300 sq. ft. situated in Arazi No.789

of village-Bhadali Khera, District-Bhilwara.

2.

The relevant facts in nutshell are that the petitioner, a

partnership firm, engaged in business of digestive churen

tablets, Ayurvedic medicines, spices, herbal products etc.,

applied for allotment of industrial land under the provisions of

Rajasthan Industrial Areas Allotment Rules, 1959 ( for short “the

Rules”), vide application dated 15.10.05. The petitioner had

DWARKESH PHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

(S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9982/10)

2

applied for allotment of 48300 sq. ft. land comprising Arazi

no.789 of Village Bhadali Khera, District Bhilwara. The land

applied for had already been set apart for the industrial purpose

by the Collector, Bhilwara vide order dated 28.7.88. The

application preferred by the petitioner was processed and the

Tehsildar, Bhilwara submitted the site inspection report to the

General Manager, District Industries Centre, Bhilwara vide

communication dated 11.11.05 with the recommendation that

the land is lying vacant and is available for allotment. Thereafter,

vide communication dated 16.1.06 issued by the General

Manager, District Industries Centre, the petitioner was informed

to deposit a sum of Rs.3,53,475/- towards the land price,

development charges and lease rent with the Tehsildar,

Bhilwara. The amount was deposited by the petitioner with the

Tehsildar, Bhilwara as directed vide challan dated 28.1.06. The

information in this regard was sent by the Tehsildar, Bhilwara to

the General Manager, District Industries Centre vide

communication dated 23.2.06. The petitioner has placed on

record the draft allotment order as Annexure 9, which was not

signed by the District Collector (Industries), Bhilwara. Later, vide

communication dated 23.4.06, the petitioner was informed that

since the land proposed to be allotted falls within periphery limit

DWARKESH PHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

(S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9982/10)

3

of Bhilwara City, the same is not available for allotment and

accordingly, the petitioner was directed to make an application

for refund of the amount deposited by it.

3.

The petitioner made a representation to the General

Manager, District Industries Centre, stating that Municipal

Council, Bhilwara and U.I.T., Bhilwara have regularised and

converted various plots falling within the periphery limit of the

Municipal Council, Bhilwara. The petitioner clarified that the land

is located at the distance of 6-7 kms. from abadi area. That

apart, the petitioner submitted that the allotments for industrial

purpose were made in favour of other industrial units in the

disputed area and as a matter of fact, the land in question, is

also earmarked for the industrial purpose. The representation

made by the petitioner was not acceded to, however, the matter

was referred to the State Government for refund of the amount

deposited by the petitioner. It appears that in the meantime, a

decision was taken by the District Level Empowe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top