SURESH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALTHOUGH this matter came up for consideration of the application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India filed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 seeking vacation of ad-interim stay order dated 6. 1. 2000, but since the arguments that were raised for deciding that application, would be sufficient for deciding the main case itself finally, therefore, the matter was taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties.

(2.) BONE of contention between the parties is a piece of land admeasuring 881. 68 sq. yards which lies in front of plot Nos. 66, 67 and 68, Kanota Bagh, JLN Marg, Jaipur. While on the one hand, the petitioners claim that the said piece of land, described as strip of land, was offered to be sold to the petitioners by the then Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur vide letter dated 29. 8. 1970, they are entitled to allotment of the same. On the other hand, the private respondents No. 4 to 8 claim that they having purchased the aforesaid plots Nos. 66, 67 and 68 vide registered sale deed dated 28. 1. 1998, the petitioners are now not entitled to allotment of the strip of land and it is they who are entitled to the allotment of the aforementioned strips of land which is actually adjacent to the aforesaid plots. The petitioners however relied upon various letters/communications addressed to them by UIT, especially the letter dated 29. 8. 1970, 19. 10. 1972, 10. 11. 1972, 30. 3. 1977 and 13. 4. 1977 in support of their contention. Lastly they relied on the letter of the Deputy Legal Remembrancer dated 28. 12. 98 which according to the petitioners was recommendation for regularization of their possession by charging double the reserve price in terms of Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (for short-the Rules of 1974) and the letter dated 13. 8. 1998 addressed by Chief Executive Officer, Nagam Nigam, Jaipur to the Secretary, UDH, Rajasthan, Jaipur. It is in this background that issuance of a mandamus has been prayed for by the petitioners for (i) declaring that their possession stands regularized over the aforesaid strip of land, (ii) directing the respondents to allot the said strip of land to them and regularize their possession on receipt of the cost of land as per the decision taken by the UIT on 27. 4. 1977, (iii) declaring that the petitioners are allottees of the land and direction be given to JDA/municipal Corporation/state to issue demand notice for payment of the premium and (iv) restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from the aforesaid strips of land.

(3.) SHRI Paras Kuhad in support of his arguments, relied on the judgments of Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in Bishan Das & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (AIR 1961 SC 1570 and other judgments in Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1986) 1 SCC 133, State of U. P. & Ors. vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh & Ors. , (1989) 2 SCC 505 and the judgment of this Court in M/s. Chandra and Co. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. , AIR 1981 Raj. 217 and on their strength, argued that a person who is in peaceful possession of the property, cannot be deprived of possession of the same except with due process of law and therefore prayed that a writ should be issued for restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from the aforesaid strip of land, apart from other reliefs as mentioned above.