Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

M/S. Surendra Singh & Co. Sgnr vs State (Agriculture) & Ors on 2 February, 2012

Author: Govind Mathur

Bench: Govind Mathur

                                  S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7653/2011
                         M/s Surendra Singh & Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

                                    1

          S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7653/2011

                     M/s Surendra Singh & Co.
                                 Vs.
                    State of Rajasthan and Ors.


Date of Order     :: 2.2.2012


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR


Mr. Hemant Jain, for the petitioner/s.
                              ...

This petition for writ is preferred to challenge the order dated 9.5.2011 passed by the Director, Agriculture Marketing rejecting the appeal preferred as per provisions of Section 39 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961' hereinafter).

In brief, facts of the case are that the petitioner preferred an application on 22.4.2009 for allotment of a strip of land situated at Mandi Yard. The respondent No.2 rejected the same, therefore, the appeal was preferred. Learned Appellate Authority after considering all facts of the case reached at the conclusion that the land-in- question is earmarked for construction of kiosks, urinals, and land check-post, therefore, the same is not available for allotment.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has claimed for allotment of a piece of land measuring 20' x 45', out of the total land measuring 50' x 100', as such, even S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7653/2011 M/s Surendra Singh & Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2 by keeping the land earmarked for construction of urinal, kiosk and land check-post, a small part of that could have been allotted to the petitioner.

The argument advanced is absolutely bereft of merit. The entire patch of land measuring 50' x 100' is kept earmarked for a specific purpose and therefore, is not open for allotment for any other purpose. The appellate authority, thus, rightly rejected the appeal. No interference of this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted. The petition for writ is dismissed.

(GOVIND MATHUR), J.

rm/