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