Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
10 B Vikas Samiti And Anr vs Shri Pawan Kumar Goyal And Ors on 30 July, 2019
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1179/2018
10 B Vikas Samiti And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
Shri Pawan Kumar Goyal And Ors
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sarthak Rastogi Mr. Hemant Sharma Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta
Mr. Gaurav Gupta
For Applicant : Mr. Saket Pareek.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 30/07/2019 Applications No. 96568/2018, 96573/2018, 96577/2018, 96570/2018, 96559/2018 have been filed by the applicants namely; Rewachand Soni; Chitarmal Sharma; Haricharan Gupta; Gulab Chand Verma and Mrs. Vimla Devi respectively contending that directions issued by Division Bench of this Court in judgment dated 31.05.2004 reported in 2004 (5) WLC 274 passed in the matter of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4787/2003 titled as 10-B Vikas Samiti & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others may be clarified.
Mr. Saket Pareek, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the area in which the shops of the applicants are situated was proposed to be a commercial area by the society and Jaipur Development Authority while approving the map simply (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 09:33:31 PM) (2 of 2) [CCP-1179/2018] mentioned "not allowed" thereupon. This, however, does not mean that the applicants cannot carry out commercial activities, as shops were constructed on the basis of the allotment made by the society.
Mr. Anil Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Jaipur Development Authority submitted that the words, "not allowed" as indicated in the map while approving the plan would mean that the allottees/applicants were not permitted to use the land for any kind of commercial activities and, therefore, no clarification in the aforesaid judgment is required for. Learned counsel submitted that in any case, such clarification could not have been sought in the proceedings of the contempt petition.
Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that if Jaipur Development Authority while approving the plan has "not allowed" the disputed shops to be used for commercial activities, the applicants cannot be allowed to carry such activities thereupon.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the approved site plan map of the area as also aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench, we do not find any kind of ambiguity or confusion in the aforesaid judgment, so as to require any clarification.
All the aforesaid applications are dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J MANOJ NARWANI /32 (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 09:33:31 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)