SUKIRTI DEVI PUROHIT (SMT.) Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has filed this appeal seeking to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 18.12.2000, disposing of the writ petition while making substantial observations having the effect of keeping virtual remedy open to the petitioner.

(2.) THE grievance of the appellant is, that the learned Single Judge has himself observed that though the question raised by the appellant requires consideration, notwithstanding this, the learned Judge has not entertained the writ petition, and has left the appellant to the remedy of already pending civil suit. It was submitted that from the documents, Annex. 4, Annex. 13 and other documents annexed with the writ petition, coupled with the provisions of Sections 73, 75 and 90 of the Urban Improvement Trust Act and the rules framed under the said Act being The Rajasthan Urban Areas (Sub -Division, Reconstruction and Improvements of Plots) Rules, 1975, more specially Rules 5 and 8 etc., also if read in the background of the established principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, that illegal constructions made on set back portions, or by reducing set backs etc. should be demolished, since in the present case, the factual side of all the aspects is not in dispute between the parties, there was no justification for relegating the appellant to the remedy of pending suit, and the writ petition was required to be considered on merits by this Court itself, and was required to be allowed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order.