ALAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present revision petition, the petitioner has raised the grievance that he had filed a civil suit for grant of permanent injunction wherein, he also sought for interim injunction during the pendency of the proceedings before the court of Munsif (West), Ajmer wherein he prayed inter-alia that he was in possession of 500 sq. yards of land falling in urban area in Khasra No. 1801 and has his ancestral house thereon which was constructed prior to the year 1976. He further contended that since the respondents were threatening to take over the possession of the land altogether with construction thereon without observing due process of law and since they were threatening to demolish the construction without issuing the notice as per the requirements of Section 91 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (for short the `uit Act"), he was within his right to take over his possession. It is significant to mention in this context that suit was only for issuance of interim injunction and not for declaration or possession. The proceedings were contested by the respondents wherein, the respondents had contended inter-alia that the State Government (the then UIT) had taken the possession of the land in question by observing due process of law as per the requirement of the provisions of the UIT Act as on 17. 10. 1987 for the public purpose of establishing housing colony known as "panchsheel Nagar Grah Nirman Yojana" in District Ajmer as per the scheme duly notified to the public at large. The civil suit was filed on 29. 3. 1994 by the petitioner subsequent to the aforesaid project which was launched by the then UIT for establishing housing colony as aforesaid over the land in question in Ajmer. This fact shows that it is not only the petitioner, but the public at large had due intimation regarding aforesaid scheme which was launched by the instrumentality of the State for the benefit of the public at large.

(2.) BY taking judicial notice of the provisions of the UIT Act more particularly Section 90 of the UIT which deals with the powers of the trust to prevent or demolish a building and also penalities for non-compliance with the notice as well as keeping in view the fact that neither balance of convenience nor any prima-facie case is made out by the plaintiff for the relief of ad-interim injunction, the trial Court declined the same. After perusal of the impugned order dated 17. 3. 1994, it is significant to mention in this context that the trial Court has further observed that plaintiff without taking prior permission of the Authority had commenced the construction and he himself is responsible for such illegal construction and keeping in view the said facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court had come to the conclusion that no case was made out for grant of interim injunction muchless, permanent injunction in the suit.

(3.) HEARD and perused the material placed on the record as well as the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the facts as so stated in the present revision petition.