Skip to content


Nath Mal Vs. the Urban Improvement Trust and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 108 of 1983
Judge
Reported in1985WLN(UC)235
AppellantNath Mal
RespondentThe Urban Improvement Trust and anr.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases ReferredDhuda Ram v. The Board of Revenue
Excerpt:
.....doors or windows had been refused and the plaintiff's door which had been opened unauthorisedly has ultimately been closed. the petitioner had unauthorisedly opened one window towards the strip of land and had no existing passage or any other enforceable right over the strip other enforceable right over the strip of land.;appeal dismissed. -..........also contested the suit and has submitted that the plaintiff is not in any way interested in the suit land or is competent to purchase this land and also that the permission sought by the plaintiff to open the doors and windows was rejected by the municipal board and inspite of refusal the plaintiff had opened the doors and windows and the matter went upto the board of revenue and it has been held that the plaintiff had unauthorisedly opened the doors and the same were ordered to be closed. the trial court decreed the suit. but on appeal the learned district judge, bikaner set aside the decree of the trial court on the ground that since the plaintiff has not come out with clean hands and has suppressed facts from the court and as the plaintiff has unauthorised opened the doors and.....
Judgment:

Surrendra Nath Bhargava, J.

1. This is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the District judge, Bikaner reversing the judgment and decree passed by Additional Munsif, No. 2, Bikaner.

2. The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit for injunction against the defendant-respondents claiming that there is a small piece of land 'Khancha' adjacent to his house and infront of the house of defendant Tekchand and the plaintiff has also been exercising his right of ingress and out-gress through this Khancha and since the Urban Improvement Trust intended to dispose of this land and the plaintiff wanted to purchase the same and the defendant Tekchand was also interested in purchasing the said land, the present suit has been filed for injunction that the U1T may not sell this land to the defendant and the defendant may not put any restriction or obstruction in the use of this land and if the UIT wanted to dispose of this land the land should be put to public auction as required by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 and should not sell the land to Tekchand by private negotiation.

3. The defendant UIT contested the suit and claimed that the plaintiff's doors and windows opening on the Khancha are unauthorised and that the plaintiff's application for grant of this land to him has been dismissed, whereas the defendant Tekchand also contested the suit and has submitted that the plaintiff is not in any way interested in the suit land or is competent to purchase this land and also that the permission sought by the plaintiff to open the doors and windows was rejected by the Municipal Board and inspite of refusal the plaintiff had opened the doors and windows and the matter went upto the Board of Revenue and it has been held that the plaintiff had unauthorisedly opened the doors and the same were ordered to be closed. The trial court decreed the suit. But on appeal the learned District Judge, Bikaner set aside the decree of the trial court on the ground that since the plaintiff has not come out with clean hands and has suppressed facts from the court and as the plaintiff has unauthorised opened the doors and windows to create interest and get a right of ingress and outgress from the suit land and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant produced some additional evidence to show that he has been allowed to open the doors during the pendency of this appeal but the said application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC has already been dismissed by this Court by its order dated 5-2-1985. A perusal of Rule 23(2) will show that where two or more persons are interested in the strip, there shall be auction only between those whose plots or building adjoining the strip of land provided that before auctioning such strip of land a public notice shall be issued. The disputed land is not doubt adjoining to that of the house of the plaintiff but he has no opening on this land and permission to open the doors or windows had been refused and the plaintiff's door which had been opened unauthorisedly has ultimately been closed and the matter went upto the Board of Revenue, whereas the defendant's house is just in the back adjoining this land. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Dhuda Ram v. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3198 of 1984 decided on 23-10-1984, wherein the writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner had unauthorisedly opened one window towards the strip of land and had no existing passage or any other enforceable right over the strip of land.

5. In view of this matter, I do not find any force in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

6. The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief prayed for in his plaint. However, it is expected that before passing final orders the UIT, Bikaner will consider all the facts, inspect the actual site and decide the matter of sale of this plot of land i.e. Khancha in accordance with law and of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to both plaintiff and defendant Tekchand and any other person interested.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //