RAJENDRA JAIN Vs. U.I.T. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against orders dated 16.12.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby, the applications filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 6 under Order I, Rule 10 CPC in the suit and application for temporary injunction have been allowed.

(2.) THE petitioner filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur ('UIT'), inter alia, with the averments that plot No. 9 situated at Gayitri Nagar, Hiranmagri, Sector 5, Udaipur was owned by the petitioner, wherein, his house having rooms, kitchen, passage, toilet etc. are standing; the land in question forms part of Araji No. 1484/2429, wherein, the UIT has undertaken proceedings under Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and Patta has been issued to several plot holders around petitioner's plot; petitioner has also applied for issuance of Patta and has deposited the self assessment regularization amount with the UIT; it was alleged that while approving the plan pertaining to Araji No. 1484 the UIT did not provide for flow of storm water resulting in huge water logging and as the residents of the colony were being inconvenienced the Collector requested that administration was arranging for construction of permanent drain and till such time, the petitioner was requested to temporarily, in public interest, permit the water to be drained through his house, based on which, the petitioner permitted to provide for a 5 -6 fit wide drain, for which, certain construction was required to be removed, the Collector had assured about issuing free patta for providing the drain; it was alleged that the drain exist in the plot by way of temporary measure and the residents of the colony situated on the western side of the house having no right or easement and petitioner is entitled to withdraw his consent; the UIT has as per approved plan provided for a drain and the inconvenience to the residents of the colony has been taken care of; the temporary drain is no longer required; it was alleged that despite repeated requests, the temporary drain has not been closed so far; on the other hand, under influence of the neighbourers of the plaintiff Arjun Singh Rathore and Mool Shanker Ametha the officers and employees of the UIT have demolished the toilet and bath room constructed on the plot and have stated that the drain would permanently remain at the said place and a road would be constructed over the drain and would be connected to the main road; it was also alleged that the entire proceedings were done on account of the influence of Arjun Singh Rathose whose brother is working with the police department and several of his relatives are working on high administrative positions; several other allegations were made and ultimately it was prayed that permanent injunction be issued against the UIT from demolishing any part of the house and from interfering in the house at the plot in question; a further prayer was made that permanent drain be not constructed and mandatory injunction was sought for reconstructing the walls etc. and permit the petitioner for doing the needful.

(3.) BASED on the application filed by them, steps were taken by the UIT for removal of the construction; it was submitted that the petitioners are affected by the relief sought by the petitioner and that allegations have been made against them in the application; any order passed by the Court would affect their rights and the applicants were suffering mental, physical and financial loss and, therefore, they be impleaded as party to the suit.