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
AKIL KURESHI
DILIP KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
SAW/721/2021



Courts generally discourage litigation against show-cause notices and prefer alternative remedies such as civil suits, especially when the matter involves disputed questions of fact.

Headnote:

Fact of the Case:

The appellant challenged notices published by the Sanchore Municipal Board inviting objections to the regularization of possession and grant of pattas in favor of certain individuals. The appellant had applied for registration of a patta for a land allegedly sold to him, but his application was refused. He filed an appeal under Section 77 of the Registration Act, which was dismissed. He then filed a civil suit, which was pending. During the pendency of the civil proceedings, the Municipal Board initiated steps to grant pattas to other individuals.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that it involved disputed questions of fact, the appellant had already filed a civil suit regarding the non-registration of the patta, and the Municipal Board's actions were in the nature of show-cause notices, which the court generally discourages litigation against.

Issues: Whether the court should intervene in a matter involving disputed questions of fact when an alternative remedy of a civil suit is available.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it would not ordinarily intervene in matters involving disputed questions of fact, especially when an alternative remedy of a civil suit is available. The court also noted that the Municipal Board's notices were in the nature of show-cause notices, which the court generally discourages litigation against.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 721/2021

Dilip Kumar S/o Shri Bheemraj, Aged About 62 Years, By Caste

Jain, Resident Of Sanchore, District Jalore. Director Bhujikative

Infra. Project Private Limited, Mumbai.

----Appellant

Versus

1.

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Local Self

Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2.

The Director Cum Deputy Secretary, Directorate, Local

Self Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3.

Municipal Board, Sanchore, District Jalore Through Its

Executive Officer.

4.

The Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Sanchore, District

Jalore.

5.

Shri Oswal Panch Mahajanan Sanchore, Through Its

Executive Trustee, Bhinmal, District Jalore.

6.

Shri Gauri Shankar S/o Shri Govind Ram, By Caste

Maheshwari, R/o Old Bus Stand, Sanchore, District Jalore.

7.

Shanti Devi W/o Jai Shankar, By Caste Maheshwari, R/o

Old Bus Stand, Indra Chowk, Sanchore, District Jalore.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Manoj Bhandari.

For Respondent(s)-

Caveator

:

Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. Rajat Dave

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

Order

03/01/2022

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned

Single Judge dated 07.09.2021 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

14715/2017.

(2 of 3)

[SAW-721/2021]

The appellant-original petitioner has challenged the notices

published by Sanchore Municipal Board on 18.08.2017 and

22.08.2017 inviting objections from the members of the public

against the regularization of the possession and grant of pattas in

favour of persons mentioned in the notices. The case of the

petitioner was that he had applied for registration of patta in one

of the lands which was allegedly sold to him. When this was

refused, he had filed appeal before the authority under Section 77

of the Registration Act. The appeal has been dismissed.

Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a civil suit which is pending.

During the pendency of the civil proceedings, since the Municipal

Board had initiated steps for granting pattas in favour of some

other persons, the petitioner had challenged the notices.

The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment

dismissed the writ petition inter-alia on the grounds that the same

involves highly disputed question of facts, the petitioner has

already filed a civil suit with regard to non registration of the patta

of the land in question, which is pending and lastly, even the

Municipal Board has taken steps for issuance of pattas in favour of

persons who are having possession of the land, the same would

be a disputed question of fact which would normally be not

decided in a writ petition.

We are broadly in agreement with the view of the learned

Single Judge. The petitioner has already instituted civil

proceedings with respect to the non-registration of the patta in

relation to the land in question. The Municipal Board has invited

objection. In that view of the matter, the impugned notices are in

the nature of show-cause notices. As per settled law, the Court

does not ordinarily encourage litigation against show-cause

(3 of 3)

[SAW-721/2021]

notices and lastly alternative remedy of civil suit which, in our

opinion, would be more appropriate proceedings, is also available,.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

All pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J

(AKIL KURESHI),CJ

13-jayesh/-

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