Rajasthan HC Orders Committee to Resolve Kabir Nagar Plot Dispute After 15-Year Possession Delay by Jodhpur Municipal Corporation

Allottees who paid full consideration in 2011 still lack possession; Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand directs a three-month resolution with alternative plots or DLC-rate compensation as fallback.

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has directed the Jodhpur Municipal Corporation to constitute a high-level committee within four weeks to resolve a 15-year-old dispute over possession of commercial plots at Kabir Nagar Commercial Scheme, Jodhpur. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, sitting singly, heard three connected writ petitions filed by allottees who purchased plots in an auction conducted by the Municipal Corporation but were never handed possession despite paying the full consideration amount in 2011. The court found the corporation's conduct amounting to negligence and callousness, held that the allottees could not be made to suffer for it, and laid down a structured mechanism covering compensation at DLC rates or allotment of alternative plots if physical possession remains impossible.

The Three Writ Petitions and What Each Allottee Sought

The three petitions were taken up together because they raised common questions of law and fact. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3445/2026 was filed by Smt. Kiran, seeking possession of commercial Plot No. 8 at Kabir Nagar Commercial Scheme. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3443/2026 was filed by Santosh Singh, seeking possession of Plot No. 10. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16463/2026 was filed by Mohammed Aslam, who purchased Plot No. 7 from its original allottee Usha Sharda after she in turn had bought it from one Kiran Sharda.

Smt. Kiran and Santosh Singh stated that their respective plots were allotted to them through auction proceedings and pattas were issued in their favour, yet possession was not delivered. Mohammed Aslam held a transfer certificate in his name for Plot No. 7 and had also received permission from the Municipal Council to raise construction, but the corporation was now alleging that he was actually in occupation of Plot No. 10 rather than Plot No. 7.

The petitioners also sought a declaration that the corporation's inaction in withholding possession was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Smt. Kiran and Santosh Singh raised an alternative prayer: if possession of their specific plots could not be handed over for any technical reason, alternative plots of the same measurement should be allotted in the same scheme, invoking the Division Bench judgment in Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur v. Lakshmi Chand Bhaodari, AIR 1992 Raj 153.

Competing Claims: Encroachers or Rehabilitated Occupants?

Two impleadment applications complicated the picture. Jagmal Singh stated he had been allotted a 20x40 sq. ft. plot on the western side of Plot No. 7 in 1999 under a rehabilitation scheme after a road was constructed over his earlier kachhi basti holding. He maintained he was in legal possession of land allotted to him, not an encroacher.

Umrao Khan similarly stated he had been rehabilitated to the site in 1996 after a road came up over his earlier land at Chandana Bhakar. He had filed a civil suit asserting adverse possession and obtained a temporary injunction protecting his occupation. His writ petition — S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16678/2026 — had already been disposed of by this court on 03.08.2026 with a direction that no coercive action be taken against him while he pursued a statutory appeal under Section 194(12) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009.

The Municipal Corporation, however, relied on a survey conducted by a Joint Committee constituted by it. The committee's report dated 10.07.2026 found that Umrao Khan was in unauthorised occupation of Plot Nos. 7 and 8, Jagmal Singh was in unauthorised occupation of Plot No. 9, and Mohammed Aslam was in unauthorised occupation of Plot No. 10. On 05.07.2026 the corporation had issued a public notice inviting objections, and on 15.07.2026 it issued notices under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 calling on the occupants to remove their encroachments.

The applicants disputed the survey findings, contending that the corporation's own documents established their lawful occupation and that the Joint Committee report was incorrect.

Why the Court Found the Corporation's Conduct Wanting

Justice Dhand accepted that questions of actual physical possession and disputed title could not be adjudicated under the writ jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India, given the contested factual matrix. The court accordingly declined to make final findings on who was rightfully in possession of each plot.

What the court did find, plainly, was that the allottees bore no responsibility for the situation. More than 15 years had elapsed since the full consideration was deposited and pattas were issued. The court held that the Jodhpur Municipal Corporation, as a governmental body, was bound to act in a manner that created a sense of security in the minds of citizens dealing with it. Citizens must be able to rely on the representations made by the State, and a special sanctity and presumption of correctness attaches to governmental acts.

The court applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel, citing Surendra Prasad Mishra v. O.N.G.C., AIR 1987 Cal 1, for the proposition that where a government agency makes a promise knowing it will be acted upon and the promisee alters his position accordingly, the agency is bound by that promise even without formal consideration or a written contract under Article 299 of the Constitution of India. The allottees had paid the full purchase price and received title documents in reliance on the corporation's auction and allotment process.

The court also drew on the Supreme Court's judgment in Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Sunita, AIR 1989 SC 1137, where the Apex Court held that when plots remain available in a scheme and are being advertised for auction, earlier drawees are entitled to claim allotment of those plots. The court applied this principle to support the alternative-plot prayer.

On the encroachment removal side, the court acknowledged the Supreme Court's direction in Jagpal Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., 2011 (11) SCC 396, that State governments must prepare schemes for the speedy eviction of illegal occupants after show-cause notice and a brief hearing, so that public land is restored for public benefit. The court held that removal of encroachments from public lands is mandated, but due process must be followed.

The court found the notices of 15.07.2026 to be “nothing but simply an eyewash to satisfy this Court.” No proper enquiry had been conducted, the representations of Umrao Khan, Jagmal Singh, and Mohammed Aslam had not been genuinely considered, and the corporation's own records had not been taken into account before the adverse order was passed. The court drew on Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana v. Inderjeet Singh, 2008 (13) SCC 506, for the rule that where municipal legislation requires notice and hearing, that requirement must necessarily be complied with before any adverse action is taken against an occupant.

Invoking Article 21 as expanded in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, and the right to property as a human right under Article 300-A as affirmed in State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar and Ors., 2011 (10) SCC 404, the court held that forceful dispossession without following due process is constitutionally impermissible. The allotment process, the court observed, could not be allowed to remain stalled for an indefinite period.

Directions Issued by the Court

The court disposed of all three writ petitions along with both impleadment applications by issuing a set of time-bound directions.

Within four weeks from the date of the order, the Municipal Corporation must constitute a committee comprising higher officials of the Department of Local Self Government, the District Collector of Jodhpur Metropolitan, and the Commissioner of the Jodhpur Municipal Corporation.

Within fifteen days of the committee being constituted, all petitioners and applicants must submit their representations and objections regarding their rights and title over the plots in question to the committee.

The committee must provide an opportunity of hearing to each individual and pass reasoned and speaking orders in each case, strictly in accordance with law.

If the committee finds that any applicant or Mohammed Aslam is in possession on the basis of documents establishing valid title, and those premises are required for allotment to the respective individual allottee, then adequate compensation shall be awarded at prevailing DLC rates.

Alternatively, if possession of any of the subject plots cannot be handed over for good reason, an alternative plot of similar size must be allotted to the concerned petitioner within the same scheme.

Where no objections are received, the Municipal Corporation may proceed in accordance with law. Any person aggrieved by the committee's decision may approach the appropriate forum for redressal.

The court also included a specific environmental direction: if any trees or plants need to be removed during the allotment process, the corporation must count and inventory them, and for every single plant or tree removed, ten shady plants must be planted in the close vicinity in a public area. A compliance report on this must be submitted to the court.

Outcome

All three writ petitions — S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3445/2026, 3443/2026, and 16463/2026 — were disposed of on 18 August 2026 by this common order. All stay applications and pending applications stand disposed of. The entire process, including committee constitution, hearings, and final orders, must be completed within three months from the date of the order. The order was reserved on 12 August 2026 and pronounced on 18 August 2026.