Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5261 (RAJ)

RAM PRAKASH S/O LATE GOPIRAM v. NAGAR NIGAM JAIPUR

CSA/162/2023 · 2025-04-03

Ashok Kumar Jain

Civil Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:14964] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 162/2023 1. Ram Prakash S/o Late Gopiram, R/o B-157, Bassi Sitarampura, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur (Died During Pendency Of Suit) Through Power Of Attorney Holder Jitendra Singh Nathawat, S/o Bhawani Singh Nathwat, R/o B-229, Bassi Sitarampura, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur. 1/1. Jitendra Singh Nathawat, S/o Bhawani Singh Nathwat, R/o B-229, Bassi Sitarampura, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus 1. Nagar Nigam Jaipur, Through Mayor, Nagar Nigam Office, Lalkothi, Jaipur. 2. Commissioner, Vidhyadhar Nagar Zone, Nagar Nigam. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 03/04/2025 1. Instant second appeal is preferred dissatisfied from judgment dated 23.09.2022 in Civil Appeal No.02/2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge Bassi, Jaipur Metro-I. Initially, the plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit No.151/2015 (43/2010) for declaration and injunction and same was dismissed by learned Additional Civil Judge No.1, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur on 28.02.2019. The First Appellate Court has protected the possession of the plaintiff-appellant by issuing an injunction in favour of appellant- plaintiff and against the respondent and specifically restraining respondents from forcible dispossession. [2025:RJ-JP:14964] (2 of 2) [CSA-162/2023] 2. During course of arguments, learned counsel for appellant submits that his case is only for regularization of plot No.B-157 wherein, the plaintiff is in settled and peaceful possession. He submits that his piece of land was acquired by erstwhile UIT after paying a compensation of ₹50/- with compensatory allocation of plot No.B-217. He submits that B-217 was not suitable for residence, therefore, the plaintiff has requested for change of plot and only on assurance of the then official erstwhile UIT, the plaintiff was assigned the land marked as B-157. He further submits that plot No.B-217 was already auctioned and allotted to 3rd party, therefore, the plaintiff is not having possession of any other land except plot No.B-157. 3. Learned counsel for appellant offers to withdraw the instant second appeal with liberty to file appropriate proceeding including filing of writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 4. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for appellant, the instant second appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. 5. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /07