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

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AKIL KURESHI
MAHAVEER RAJ KOTHARI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW/11051/2020



Land use conversion and construction without permission can be regularized if the construction is not opposed to any mandatory restrictions of the building rules and regulations.

Headnote:

LAND USE - CHANGE OF USER - REGULARIZATION - CONSTRUCTION - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [SUMMARY]

Fact of the Case:

A public interest litigation was filed alleging that a private company had used agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, constructed a hotel without permission, and rented out the open plot for marriage receptions without a license.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the land use conversion was authorized by the authorities and the construction was existing since 2014. The court also noted that the respondent had applied for regularization of the construction and deposited an advance amount of more than 12 lacs with the authorities.

Issues: 1. Whether the change of user of land was legal. 2. Whether the construction was authorized. 3. Whether the open plot could be used for marriage receptions without a license.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it would be futile to remove the construction if it could be regularized. The court also held that the respondent could not use the open plot for marriage receptions without a license.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the public interest litigation and left it to the authorities to examine if the land use and the construction were opposed to any mandatory restrictions of the building rules and regulations.

(1 of 3)

[CW-11051/2020]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11051/2020

Mahaveer Raj Kothari S/o Shri Navratan Lal Kothari, Aged About

60 Years, R/o 6, Navlakha Road, Pali (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self

Government Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2.

Urban Improvement Trust, Pali Through Its Secretary.

3.

The Municipal Council, Pali Through Its Commissioner.

4.

The District Industries Centre, Pali Through Its General

Manager.

5.

Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its

Regional Officer, Sa-6, Mandia Road, Industrial Area, Pali-

Marwar (Rajasthan).

6.

M/s Navkar Buildcon Private Limted, Through Its Director

Shri Vinod Singhvi S/o Shri Ummaid Mal Singhvi, Resident

Of 3Rd Pal Link Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Deelip Kawadia, through V.C.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG, through V.C.

Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Counsel assisted

by Mr. Anirudh Purohit through V.C.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

Order

10/01/2022

In this petition in the nature of public interest litigation,

the petitioner has taken up issues of legality of land use and the

construction put up by the respondent no.6 – a private company

on the land in Khasra No.775, Chak No.1 in village Pali. According

to the petitioner, the said respondent has utilized agricultural land

(2 of 3)

[CW-11051/2020]

for non-agricultural purpose, has put up construction of hotel

without permission and also rented out the open plot for marriage

reception and such other occasions for which no license has been

obtained from the authorities.

The case of the respondent no.6 however is that as part

of the tourism policy of the State Government, the said

respondent has decided to set up a hotel and for which purpose,

the land was used. The land use conversion was authorized by the

authorities after which the construction was put up. It is stated

that such construction was not after passing the plan.

Nevertheless, application for regularization has been made.

Amount of more than 12 lacs was deposited in advance with the

authorities for such regularization. It is also stated that the open

ground and garden will not be used for hosting marriage reception

unless license is granted by the concerned authorities. The case of

the respondent no.6 put forth before us by the counsel is that the

petitioner out of malice targeted this single property though there

are numerous other establishments in the vicinity carrying out

similar business. It is pointed out that the construction exists since

2014 and the petition has been filed nearly six years later.

In this public interest litigation, we are not going to

minutely scrutinize every smallest detail of permissions and

licenses to be issued by the authorities. Broadly what appears to

us is that official respondents have regularized the change of user

of land. The construction may have been put up without full

permission. Nevertheless, the same is existing since 2014 and the

application for regularization has been made. Till such application

is decided, it would be futile to remove the construction. In other

words, if the construction is something which can be regularized,

(3 of 3)

[CW-11051/2020]

we would not require it to be demolished so that after permission

it can be re-constructed. With respect to question of renting such

property for marriage reception, we record the statement of

counsel for the respondent no.6 that till license is issued by the

competent authorities, the same will not be used for such

purpose. While therefore, closing the public interest litigation, we

leave it to the authorities to examine if the land use and the

construction are opposed to any mandatory restrictions of the

building rules and regulations. If found, it

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top