MOHAMMED HAROON Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the above writ petitions involve common controversy arising from identical facts and circumstances. The relief prayed for is identical. Hence, both these writ petitions are decided by this common order, For the sake of convenience, however, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3356/2007, Mohammed Haroon v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. are taken into consideration.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing impugned notice Annex. 11 dated 8.2.2007 while praying that the respondents may be restrained to dispossess the petitioner from his commercial shoop situated at plot No. 7 and 8, Shabri Colony, Ayed, Udaipur.

(3.) AS per the assertion of the petitioner, he was peacefully running his business and earning his livelihood for last many years; but, a notice was issued to him earlier on 22.9.1999 and the petitioner was directed to vacate the possession from plots No. 7 and 8, upon which, the petitioner was running his business. Aggrieved by the said notice, a suit was filed by him along with a temporary injunction application. The trial Court registered the case of the petitioner along with another person Lalit Kothari bearing case No, 4/2000 and passed interim order on 8.1.2000 while restraining the Urban Improvement Trust from dispossessing the petitioner. Thereafter, finally the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), City (North), Udaipur vide judgment dated 22.11.2006 allowed the suit for perpetual injunction filed by the petitioner and Lalit Kothari and vide the aforesaid decree and judgment, the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur was directed not to dispossess the petitioner except by way of due process of law.