HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN - PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JODHP
KAMLA DEVI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW 11329/2018
['JITENDER SINGH BHALERIA', '', 'VIKRAM SINGH', 'PANKAJ KUMAR GUPTA', '', 'DRON KAUSHIK', 'PK BOHRA', 'RAJESH PARIHAR', 'CHAITANYA KUMAR GEHLOT']
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11329/2018
Kamla Devi W/o Shri Prithvi Raj, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste
Jat, Chak 3 E Chhoti, 100 Ft Road, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1.
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Urban Development, Secretariat, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.
The Urban Improvement Trust, Sri Ganganagar Through
Its Secretary.
3.
The Chief Town Planner, Bikaner Zone, Bikaner.
4.
Bhagwati Devi W/o Shri Jagdish Prasad,, 8-D Block, Sri
Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. J.S. Bhaleria
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Dron Kaushik
Mr. Chaitanya Gehlot
Mr. Rajesh Parihar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
22/09/2021
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:
“(i) That the impugned order dated 27.11.2017
annex p/11 passed by the respondent no.1 may
kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) That the decision taken by the UIT dated
20.02.2018 annex P/13 may kindly be declared
illegal and may kindly be quashed and set aside
with all consequential benefits.
(iii) That the letter annexes P/15 dated 13.06.2018
may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(iv) That the patta issued to the Petitioner i.e.
annex P/2 may kindly be ordered to be restored
and the respondents may kindly be directed not to
(2 of 8)
[CW-11329/2018]
interfere in the peaceful possession of the
Petitioner in the plot in question.”
Brief facts of the case are that petitioner purchased a plot
situated in Qila No.25 of Murabba No.39/41 of Chak 3E Chhoti, Sri
Ganganagar ad-measuring 30ft x 85ft. After purchasing of the
said plot, the petitioner submitted an application with Urban
Improvement Trust (referred to as, ‘UIT’) for issuance of patta so
that she can construct a house over the said plot. The UIT
considered the request of petitioner and issued an allotment letter
dated 10.11.2000 under Section 90B of the Land Revenue Act,
1956 and also issued lease-deed on 10.11.2000 and the same was
duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Sri Ganganagar. After
issuance of the allotment letter as well as the lease-deed, the
petitioner constructed a house over the said plot and started
residing peacefully.
As per the plan approved on 12.09.1989 by UIT, in front of
the plot of the petitioner, 100ft wide road was shown therein,
which merged in the 60ft wide road on a “T” point. In the final
master plan of city of Sri Ganganagar for the year 2003-2023, the
100ft wide road has been shown as straight and not in the spiral
shape. The respondent No.4 submitted an application in the year
2015 seeking permission for construction of a house on the plot
measuring 75ft x 165ft situated other side of the road for which
the Land Conversion Officer, Sri Ganganagar issued patta in his
favor on 27.09.1989, however, the same was not registered. The
said application was considered by the UIT and the matter was
referred to State Government vide letter dated 28.10.2015 with
regard to application submitted by respondent No.4. The State
Government vide letter dated 27.11.2017 directed the UIT for
(3 of 8)
[CW-11329/2018]
correction in the alignment of road as per the previous master
plan dated 1981-2001. The UIT in its meeting of empowered
committee dated 20.02.2018 (Annex.R/6), in compliance of
directions issued by the State Government, took decision for
changing the alignment of 100ft road from straight to curve and
the patta issued in favor of the petitioner was also cancelled.
Thereafter, the respondent-UIT had issued a notice dated
13.06.2018 informing the petitioner with regard to cancellation of
the patta issued in her favor. Hence, this writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
respondent-UIT had issued lease-d