BRIJESH KUMAR VIJAY Vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Brijesh Kumar Vijay inter-alia with the prayer that respondents be directed to allot him land measuring 1721 square meters in Dadabari District Centre area or alternatively in Rajeev Gandhi Yojna of UIT, Kota.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case is that out of total land measuring 4375 square meters belonging to one Ram Gopal Son of Kalyan Lal, situated in village Sakatpura, comprising of Khasra no.200, respondents acquired land measuring 2654 square meters under Rajasthan Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 (for short, ULCAR Act'), leaving remaining land of 1721 square meter which was the permissible limit, on 07.07.1988. However, respondent Urban Improvement Trust (for short, 'the UIT'), without the authority of law, issued pattas to various persons on that land. Shri Ram Gopal, owner of this land, executed a will in favour of Poonam Chand and his sons Brijesh Kumar and Balram. Poonam Chand was son of Ram Gopal's younger brother Jawahar Lal. It was thereafter that on 31.10.1987 Ram Gopal passed away. On 06.08.1991 Poonam Chand also passed away. Petitioner is son of Poonam Chand. In a meeting of sub-committee of UIT held on 05.10.1990, certain lands were identified as alternative land which could be allotted to petitioner, which were in Dadabari LIG & Extension, Pratap Nagar and Dadabari CAD Circle. The Government of Rajasthan by order dated 03.02.1992 issued directions to respondent UIT, Kota, to allot land measuring 1721 square meters in any of favour of petitioner in any of the scheme mentioned in minutes of meeting dated 05.10.1990. The respondent UIT, however, by resolution dated 04.10.1994 rejected claim of the petitioner. In those circumstances, petitioner had to approach this court by filing Writ Petition No.824/1996. Learned Single Judge of this court while deciding aforesaid writ petition by order dated 08.09.1998, quashed and set aside aforesaid UIT resolution dated 04.10.1994 and directed it to comply with Government order dated 03.02.1992.

(3.) Shri S.S. Hora, learned counsel for petitioner has argued that respondent UIT filed an appeal against aforesaid judgment before Division Bench of this Court, in which apart from making other arguments, it was also argued that present writ petitioner i.e. Brijesh Kumar Vijay was neither owner of land in dispute nor was in possession thereof. He was unable to prove his title. Since title of land of khasra no.200 was disputed, therefore he was not entitled to alternative land. The Division Bench rejected the appeal. Thereafter, Special Leave to Petition (C) 4635 of 2000 was filed by respondent UIT against aforesaid judgment, which was also rejected by the Supreme Court on 07.08.2000. Petitioner filed a contempt petition for compliance of judgment of learned Single Judge. However, respondent UIT, in order to frustrate the judgment, made allotment of land measuring 1721 square meters in another scheme known as Ram Nagar Vistar Yojna vide letter dated 23.07.2004, which was never the intention of aforesaid judgment of Single Bench dated 08.09.1998. Although the contempt petition dismissed as being not maintainable but it was observed by the court that if the petitioner was aggrieved with the nature and character of the land, which has been alloted to him, he can challenge the same by way of an alternative remedy before the appropriate forum. Learned counsel submitted that this observation would mean that a second writ petition on the same subject matter would not be barred.