Hari Mohan & Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Ms. Daya Sharma, Advocate, for Shri M.M. Ranjan, Counsel for petitioners Shri R.K. Mathur, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners became the owners of the disputed land after the death of recorded tenant Mamraj, who was the father of petitioner No.2 and grandfather of petitioner No.1. Shri Mamraj died on 2nd May, 1977 and mutation in respect of the disputed land was opened in 1977 itself, which is clear from mutation entry Annexure-2. However, the respondents issued a Notification in the year 1982 under Section 52 (2) and thereafter under Section 52 (1) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 for acquisition of the disputed land, in the name of deceased Mamraj, who died way back in the year 1977. It is further contended that the land is still in the possession of the petitioners and they filed representations before the respondents to regularize their land but the representations of the petitioners have not been decided so far, therefore, the respondents may be directed to decide the representations of the petitioners in accordance with the law.

A notice to show cause was given to the respondents and, in response thereto, the respondent No.2 has filed its reply to the writ petition, wherein it is contended that the land stood acquired long back and the possession of the disputed land was also taken way back on 30th July, 1985, whereas this writ petition has been filed in the year 2004, which is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the writ petition. It is further contended that so far as the amount of award is concerned, the same was deposited by the respondent No.2 in the Civil Court, from where the petitioners may withdraw the same. So far as the representations of the petitioners are concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the same will be decided or the petitioners may be given a liberty to file fresh representations and a direction may be given to decide the same within a reasonable time.

After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the respondents will decide the representations of the petitioners (Annexure 6 & 7), in accordance with the law, within a period of one month from today. It will be open for the petitioners to file fresh representation. In case the fresh representation is filed then the same will also be considered and decided within a period of one month. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Costs is made easy. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman// IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.5546/2004 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6452/2004 Hari Mohan S/o Shri Durga and Another Versus The State of Rajasthan and Another Date of Order ::: 21.05.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Ms. Daya Sharma, Advocate, for Shri M.M. Ranjan, Counsel for petitioners Shri R.K. Mathur, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- In view of the order passed in the writ petition itself, the stay application, filed therewith, also stands disposed of. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//