LAWS(RAJ)-2023-5-264

RASOOL KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On May 17, 2023
Rasool Khan Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

(2.) The facts in brief are that in Sujangarh, there was an old building, namely, Rajaji Ki Kothi in a very bad condition, therefore, the Stae Government, vide its letter dtd. 16/12/2002, accorded sanction to demolish the same by putting it in open auction. Pursuant to the sanction aforesaid, an auction committee was constituted and the date for auction for demolition of old building and collecting ruins thereof was fixed as 11/5/2003. Shri Rsool Khan original petitioner), being aspirant, participated in the open auction and deposited Rs.25,000.00 as earnest money with the respondent No.4. The father of the petitioners tendered the highest bid in the said auction amounting to Rs.1,26,000.00 and deposited 25% of the bid amount, i.e. Rs.31,500.00 with the respondent No.4. Thereafter, the bid of the father of the petitioners was approved by the respondent No.2 vide letter dtd. 19/5/2003 Annex.3).

(3.) Shri Rasool Khan, father of the petitioners, thereafter started demolishing the old building by engaging labourers but, however, he had to stop the work as there was a stay granted by the Additional Civil Judge JD), Sujangarh Churu. on 13/5/2003 in Civil Suit No.16/2003 on an application for temporary injunction filed along with civil suit filed by one Shri Ram Singh for permanent injunction against the State for restraining the respondent State for demolishing old historical building situated in Sujangarh. However, the said suit was dismissed vide order dtd. 29/5/2004 Annex.4. as not pressed. The respondent No.3 informed about the dismissal of the said suit to the respondent No.2 and stated that since the matter of demolishing the said building remained postponed due to the stay order granted by the civil court and since now the suit has been dismissed, therefore, requested the respondent No.2 to issue appropriate orders in this regard.