- (1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 19.5.2000, passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No.3, Jaipur City, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner, and also aggrieved by the order dated 17.9.2013, passed by the Addl. District Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a civil suit against the Rajasthan Housing Board for permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking a temporary injunction restraining the defendant-RHB, from closing down the passage situated at the eastern side of the petitioner's house and from raising any construction in the land situated in the back side of the petitioner's plot, with a further prayer for a direction to the defendant to allot the strip of land to the petitioner. By order dated 19.5.2000, the learned Magistrate, dismissed the said application for temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.5.2000, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Judge. By order dated 17.9.2013, the learned Judge dismissed the said appeal. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) Mr. R.L. Agrawal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently raised the following contention before this Court:- Firstly, the petitioner happens to be a retired judicial officer of the State. Since he has retired as a Session Judge, he is entitled to a plot of a particular size. However, despite the fact that Niti Nagar was established for judicial officers and lawyers the petitioner has been given a plot of only 120 sq. mtrs., whereas he is entitled to a plot of 190 sq.mtrs. According to the learned counsel there is strip of land lying next to the plot alloted to the petitioner and repeatedly the petitioner has shown eagerness to buy this strip of land. Yet the strip of land has not been alloted to him. Therefore, the learned Magistrate and the learned Judge have erred in dismissing his application for temporary injunction. Secondly, the petitioner has filed an application for amending the plaint ostensibly on the ground that according to the Shetty Commission Report, the judicial officers of the rank of District Judge were entitled for having certain percentage of site/house, where there are available for allocation/allotment by the Housing Board. These recommendations were subsequently approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors, 2002 4 SCC 274. Therefore, these recommendations were binding upon the respondent, Rajasthan Housing Board. Hence, the Rajasthan Housing Board was duty bound to allot the strip of land to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had strong prima facie case in his favour for preventing the Rajasthan Housing Board from raising any construction on the strip of land, which was lying right next to the petitioner's house. However, these glaring facts have been ignored by both the courts below. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.;