Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN - HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
SATISH MITTAL S/O LATE. SHRI KANHAIYA LAL JI – Appellant
Versus
URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST – Respondent
CW 6726/2021
LAND ACQUISITION - RAJASTHAN URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST ACT, 1959 - SECTION 51 - ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY - COMPENSATION - ALLOTMENT OF SHOPS - WRIT JURISDICTION - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, two of six brothers, filed a writ petition seeking a determination of their share in a disputed property that was acquired by the Urban Improvement Trust (UIT) for road widening. The petitioners claimed that the UIT had not adequately compensated them for the acquisition and had not allotted them shops in the newly constructed building on the acquired land.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable because it involved highly disputed questions of fact that required analysis of evidence from witnesses. The court also noted that the UIT had already allotted alternative accommodation to the persons who were legally entitled to it.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to compensation for the acquisition of their property by the UIT?2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to allotment of shops in the newly constructed building on the acquired land?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. CG Power and Industrial Solutions Ltd. & Anr., which held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be granted in a case arising out of contract, but that High Courts usually refrain from entertaining writ petitions that involve adjudication of disputed questions of fact.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it was not maintainable because it involved highly disputed questions of fact and that the UIT had already allotted alternative accommodation to the persons who were legally entitled to it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6726/2021
1.
Satish Mittal S/o Late. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Ji, Resident Of
Kait Ki Chowki, Old Sabji Mandi, Kota (Raj.) Presently
Residing At 27 Ballabh Nagar Extension Kota (Raj.)
2.
Bal Kishan Mittal S/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Ji, Resident
Of Kait Ki Chowki, Old Sabji Mandi, Kota (Raj.) Presently
Residing At Gulabbadi, Kota (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Urban Improvement Trust, Through Its Secretary, Urban
Improvement Trust, Near Cad Circle, Kota (Raj.)
2. Girraj Prasad S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal Mittal, Resident of Kent Ki
Chauki, Vijay Market, Ghantaghar, Kota City, Kota (Raj.)
3. Nawal Kishore Mittal S/o. Shri Kanhaiyalal Mittal, Resident of
2, Kent Ki Chauki, Sabji Mandi, Kota City, Kota (Raj.)
4. Mahendra Mittal S/o. Kanhaiyalal Mittal, Resident of House
No.181, Kent Ki Chauki, Vijay Market, Ghantaghar, Kota City,
Kota (Raj.)
5. Vishnu Kumar Mittal S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Resident of House
No.181, Kent Ki Chouki, Vijay Market, Kota City, Kota (Raj.)
presently Residing at A-584, Indra Vihar, Kota (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Digvijay Singh, Adv. on behalf of
Mr. M.S. Raghav, Adv.
Mr. Bhrigu Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Vimal Chand Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. Diwakar Kaldwa, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
04/01/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the
following prayers:-
(2 of 4)
[CW-6726/2021]
It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble
court may kindly:-
(i-a) by an appropriate writ, order or
direction impugned action of the
respondents of demolishing the constructed
portion of the petitioner and other four
brothers which was ancestral/joint property
in nature, marked in white lined area in
Annex-12 which was not required for
broadening of the road by 40 feet may
kindly be declared as illegal and respondent
authorities of UIT be directed to release and
handover the area marked in white line to
the petitioner and four brothers i.e.
Respondent No. 2 to 6 .
(i-b) by an appropriate writ, order or
direction respondents UIT be directed to
adequately compensate the petitioner and
respondent No. 2 to 6 for demolishing the
constructed portion G+2 existing in white
line marked area (Annex-12), which was
not required for the purpose of broadening
of road by 40 feet.
(i-c) by an appropriate writ, order or
direction respondent UIT be directed to
make
suitable
arrangement
of
rehabilitation of all persons having
shops/constructed area demolished for the
purpose of broadening of road by 40 feet
at any other place other than the ancestral
joint property of Petitioners marked in
white line.
(I)by an appropriate writ, order or direction
the impugned action of respondents of
constructing 4 shops for allotment in
place of 6 shops in the earmarked area of
approximately 44x28 sq. feet may kindly
be declared as illegal and the impugned
action be quashed and set aside by this
Hon'ble Court.
(II)
by an appropriate writ, order or
direction direct the respondent to
construct 6 shops in place of 4 in
earmarked area of approximately 44x28
sq. feet, thus allotting one shop each to
both the petitioners, and their 4 brothers,
in addition to the compensation, against
the acquisition of property / shop having
taken place in pursuance of acquisition
notice dt. 9.8.2019.
(III)
by an appropriate writ, order or
direction the respondent be further
directed to make allotment and issue
necessary allotment and issue necessary
allotment letters forthwith to both the
(3 of 4)
[CW-6726/2021]
petitioners and the other four brothers for
6 shops constructed by them.
(IV)
By an appropriate writ, order or
direction respondent be directed to allow
the petitioners and other four brothers to
remain present at the construction s
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
