CHAIRMAN v. VIJAY SINGH SON OF LATE SHRI RAGHUNATH SINGH
CW/11224/2025 · 2025-09-09
Sameer Jain
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23569 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23569 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:36168] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11224/2025
1. Chairman, Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar, Rajasthan.
2. Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus Vijay Singh Son Of Late Shri Raghunath Singh, Resident Of Village Nibhera, Via Badoda Mev, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Shukla, Adv.with Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 09/09/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the petition.
2. Upon perusal of the petition, it is analyzed that the petitioner has challenged an order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. The grievance of the petitioner is that, as per the condition stipulated at page 20 of the petition, only one member from a family was eligible to apply for the allotment of a house. For the sake of handiness the said condition is reproduced herein below:
“(य)
आवेदक अपने पररवार कारर मे वरररत सदसों मे से एक सदस ही
आवेदन कर सकता है। शेष सदसों दारा रकये गये आवेदन मान नहीं ” होंगे।
3. However, in the matter at hand, multiple members integral to the same family submitted separate applications, resulting in
[2025:RJ-JP:36168] (2 of 2) [CW-11224/2025] the rejection of their applications and the forfeiture of their earnest money. It is further submitted that the impugned order was challenged before the Permanent Lok Adalat, and the amount in question is a modest sum of Rs. 15,000/- per applicant.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances, and without going into the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition without interference, as litigation over such a nominal amount does not warrant consideration by a writ Court.
5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. However, it is clarified that the decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat in this matter shall not be treated as a precedent. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /6