Mohalla, Jatia Bazar, Sikar, Rajasthan v. Braj Bihari Adopted Adopted Son Of

Braj Bihari Adopted Adopted Son Of Shri Kesar Lal Ji Vaish, R/o Khalilabad, Tehsil Tonk At Present R/o Village Sukhalpura, Tehsil Sanganer Kabij Kashtkar Land Khasra No. 212/2, 213/3, 218/1, 218/2, Village Sukhalpura. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur Through Commissioner, Housing Board Office, Jaipur. Special Officer, Urban Development And Housing Department Jaipur. Kalu S/o Late Shri Mohru, R/o Village Sukhalpura, Near Nai Ki Thadi, Jaipur As Legal Heir Of The Deceased Mohru Jat. Arjun S/o Shri Mohru, R/o Village Sukhalpura, Near Nai Ki Thadi, Jaipur As Legal Heir Of The Deceased Mohru Jat. Smt. Bhonri D/o Late Shri Mohru W/o Shri Chitar Jat, R/o Bagh Ki Dhani, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur As Leagal Heir Of The Deceased Mohru Jat. Smt. Kali D/o Late Shri Mohru W/o Shri Bodu, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Bagh Ki Dhani, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur As Leagal Heir Of The Deceased Mohru Jat. Ganshesas S/o Late Shri Baksa Ji Jat, R/o Village Rishani, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. Smt. Nathi Wd/o Late Shri Baksha Ji Jat, R/o Village Rishani, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. Smt. Ghisi D/o Shri Baksa Ji W/o Shri Chhitar, R/o Village Rishani Tehsil Amer District Jaipur. Smt. Kesar Wd/o Shri Ramu Ji Jat, R/o Bagh Ki Dhani, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur As Leagal Heir Of The Deceased Ramu Jat. Sohan S/o Late Ramu Jat, R/o Village Bagh Ki Dhani, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur As Leagal Heir Of The Deceased Ramu Jat. Shyokaran S/o Late Shri Ramu Jat, R/o Bagh Ki Dhani, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur As Leagal Heir Of The Deceased Ramu Jat. [2025:RJ-JP:33564] (2 of 4) [CW-8147/2025]

19. Nanu S/o Late Shri Ramu Jat, R/o Bagh Ki Dhani, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur As Leagal Heir Of The Deceased Ramu Jat. Smt. Sunder D/o Late Shri Ramu W/o Shri Devaram Jat, R/o Ladana Toot Ki Dhani, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur As Leagal Heir Of The Deceased Mohru Jat. Smt. Mangli D/o Late Ramu Jat W/o Gyarsa, R/o Ladana Toot Ki Dhani, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur As Leagal Heir Of The Deceased Mohru Jat. Smt. Dhapu D/o Late Shir Ramu Ki Jat W/o Not Known, R/o Bagh Ki Dhani, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur As Leagal Heir Of The Deceased Ramu Jat. Smt. Sanjya D/o Late Ramu W/o Shri Pratap, R/o Kalya Ya Bas, Akhepura, Tehsil Amer District Jaipur As Legal Heir Of Deceased Ramu Jat.

20. Kajodmal S/o Shri Bhagta Ji Jat, R/o Sukhalpura New Sanganer Road, Jaipur .

21. Mangalchand S/o Shri Bhagta Ji Jat, R/o Village Sukhalpura, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur.

24. Birdichand S/o Shri Bhagra Ji Jat, R/o Sukhalpura, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur. Buddharam S/0 Shri Bhagta Ji Jat, R/o Village Sukhalpura, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur. Ramchandra S/o Shri Bhagta Ji Jat, Village Sukhalpura, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur.

25. Mohallal S/o Shri Bhagta Ji Jat, R/o Village Sukhalpura, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur.

26. Dharmendra Choudhary S/o Shri Baksaram, R/o Reliance Chemotex India Limited, Udaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deen Dayal Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 25/08/2025

1. Present petition is filed against the order dated 12.02.2025, whereby application under Order XXII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the petitioner has been rejected. [2025:RJ-JP:33564] (3 of 4) [CW-8147/2025]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Annexure-3 (consent letter/ सहमति(cid:5) प्ቔ) and submitted that Dharmendra Choudhary who was arrayed at Serial No.2 on the same lines was impleaded in the petition in question. It is submitted that the order passed by the learned Court below needs consideration, as Housing Board in the note sheets has also considered the role of the petitioner.

3. I have analysed the impugned order dated 12.02.2025 which reproduced as under:- बहस के (cid:5)क(cid:11) पर मनन तिकया, " प्ቔावली का अवलोकन, अ्ቖयन तिकया गया एवं स्ቚ቏ኌ(cid:27)(cid:5) तिवति(cid:28) का अवलोकन कर माग(cid:29)द्ቦ(cid:29)न ्ቚा्቎ तिकया। ्ቚाቕኍ$ जावेद का ्ቚाቕኍ(cid:29)ना प्ቔ का अवलोकन करें (cid:5)ो उसका मु्ቅ रूप से यह कቕኍन है तिक ्ቚाቕኍ(cid:29)ना प्ቔ की मद सं्ቅा 6 में वति,(cid:29)(cid:5) खा(cid:5)ेदार ्ብोकर,, नानू, हरफु ल, ्ቦंकर, लालाराम, मनभर, घीसी, सोहन ्ቦव, ्ቛारा तिदनांक

15.10.2013 को ्ቚाቕኍ$ जावेद व (cid:28)म5ኚ᭾ चौ(cid:28)री के प्ቌ में सहमति(cid:5) प्ቔ जारी तिकये गये है। (cid:28)म5ኚ᭾ चौ(cid:28)री का ्቗ू तिपकं तिसटी गृह तिनमा(cid:29), सहकारी सतिमति(cid:5) के ्ቝान पर ्ቚति(cid:5)्ቝातिप(cid:5) तिकया जा चुका है। ऐसे में ्ቚाቕኍ$ जावेद को भी तिदनांक

15.10.2013 के सहमति(cid:5) प्ቔ के आ(cid:28)ार पर ब(cid:5)ौर तिवप्ቌी प्ቌकार जोड़ा जावे। ्ቚाቕኍ$ जावेद के सहमति(cid:5) प्ቔ को तिवप्ቌी ्ብोकर,, नानू, घासी, सोहन के प्ቌ में तिन्ቡातिद(cid:5) करने से इंकार तिकया है। ्ቚाቕኍ$ जावेद तिजन प्ቌकारों के ्ቛारा सहमति(cid:5) प्ቔ जारी तिकये जाने का कቕኍन कर(cid:5)े हुए ्቗ायालय के सम्ቌ ्ቭयं को ब(cid:5)ौर तिवप्ቌी प्ቌकार जोड़े जाने का तिनवेदन कर रहा है, उ्ቡीं प्ቌकार ्ቛारा सहमति(cid:5) प्ቔ तिन्ቡातिद(cid:5) करने से इंकार तिकया गया है। ऐसे में जबतिक ्ቚाቕኍ$ तिजस सहमति(cid:5) प्ቔ को अपने आपको ब(cid:5)ौर प्ቌकार बनाये जाने के तिलए ्ቚ्ቜु(cid:5) कर रहा है, उस सहमति(cid:5) प्ቔ को अ्ቚाቕኍ$ग, ्ቛारा ्ቚाቕኍ$ जावेद के प्ቌ में तिन्ቡातिद(cid:5) करने से इंकार तिकया गया है। ऐसे में सहमति(cid:5) प्ቔ ्ቭयं में ही संतिद्ሾ हो गया। संतिद्ሾ द्ቜावेज के आ(cid:28)ार पर तिकसी प्ቌ को ब(cid:5)ौर तिवप्ቌ ्ቚति(cid:5)्ቝातिप(cid:5) तिकया जाना तिवति(cid:28)स्ቜ(cid:5) नहीं होगा एवं ्቗ातियक तिस्ቛा्ቌ के तिवरु ्ቍ होगा। फल(cid:5)ः ्ቚाቕኍ$ जावेद खान की ओर से ्ቚ्ቜु(cid:5) ्ቚाቕኍ(cid:29)ना प्ቔ अं(cid:5)ग(cid:29)(cid:5) आदे्ቦ 22 तिनयम 10 सपतिद(cid:5) (cid:28)ारा 151 सीपीसी एवं (cid:28)ारा 5 तिमयाद/अति(cid:28)तिनयम ्ቭीकार तिकये जाने यो्ቆ नहीं होने स अ्ቭीकार कर खारिरज तिकये जा(cid:5)े हैं। आदे्ቦ सुनाया गया। प्ቔावली वा्ቜे अतिQम काय(cid:29)वाही तिदनांक 15/02/25 को पे्ቦ हो. " [2025:RJ-JP:33564] (4 of 4) [CW-8147/2025]

4. Upon perusal of the same, it is analysed that the undersigning authority of the consent letter has disowned any transaction with the petitioner; the said consent letter itself is inadmissible piece of evidence as neither it is registered nor any stamp duty was paid on it, as required under the Registration Act and the relevant other Acts. It is also note-worthy that even if a negative claim is to be made, Dharmendra Choudhary being already impleaded as a party, will not create a vested right qua the petitioner as held in the ratio encapsulated in Secretary, Jaipur Development vs. Daulat Mal Jain reported in 1997 (1) SCC 35.

5. In view of the judgment held in Secretary, Jaipur Development (supra), no interference is called for in the present petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /42