LAWS(RAJ)-2002-3-15

ASHAPURA VIKAS SAMITI Vs. STATE

Decided On March 20, 2002
ASHAPURA VIKAS SAMITI Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner i. e. Ashapura Vikas Samiti for short the `samiti' is that it is a registered society under the provisions of the Registration of Societies Act, 1958. THE said Samiti has been formed by the members of the Anand Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Jaipur i. e. respondent No. 5 having 237 members which was formed with a view to safeguard the interest of its members and for development of the colony. All the aforesaid members are having the residential plots in the scheme known as `ashapura Scheme' of respondent No. 5.

(2.) IT is further the case of the Samiti that it is in possession of the land in dispute and the patta thereof was also issued to its members by respondent No. 5 which fact is apparent from Schedule-A on the record. The Samiti is existing in Khasra Nos. 84 to 90, 124 min, 125 to 36, 137 min, 138 min, 139 to 143 and 151 to 154 in total measuring 48 Bighas 2 Biswas situated in village Bhojpura, Tehsil, Distt. Jaipur which is popularly known as `amroodon Ka Bagh'. The aforesaid plots were allotted to the members of the Samiti through Housing Cooperative Society known as Anand Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. which is also a duly registered Cooperative Society under the provisions of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 in the year 1975 and ever since they are in possession of the land in dispute.

(3.) AS regards the acquisition of the proceedings of the land in question, it is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the order dt. 15. 2. 1977 and 17. 9. 1988 and subsequent order dt. 23. 2. 1994 by which the acquisition proceedings were initiated against the petitioners under the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994 stood dropped. Thereafter, on 18. 2. 1994, the State Govt. passed the order directing regularisation of the land of the plots of the scheme belonging to the petitioner Samiti but the benefits of regularisation were denied to the petitioner Samiti.