1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6462/2004 Smt. Angoorbala Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :- 08.05.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.R.S. Bhadauria, for the petitioner. Mr.R.P. Singh, AAG for the State. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.07.2004 whereby he has been informed that plot No.48-A, which belongs to him, cannot be regularised as the Urban Improvement Trust ('the UIT', for short) plans to reserve the said plot for the construction of a Government Dispensary. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had bought a plot, Plot No.48-A, from Anandpuri Housing Cooperative Society Ltd, Ajmer way back in the year 1998. He further claims that he is in the physical possession of the said plot. However, when he applied for regularising of the said plot, suddenly vide letter dated 05.07.2004, the UIT informed him that the said plot cannot be 2 regularised as the plot falls within the facility area, and the UIT plans to reserve the said plot for construction of a Government Dispensary. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. R.S. Bhadauria, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the petitioner had bought a plot No.48-A and the plot is in his physical possession. Therefore, if the UIT plans to reserve the said plot for the construction of a Government Dispensary, then the petitioner should have been compensated for the said plot. However, no acquisition proceeding was initiated under the Land Acquisition Act. Moreover, according to a circular dated 24.12.2007 issued by the Urban Development Department, Government of Rajasthan, if a person buys a plot from a Housing Society, and if the said plot falls within the facility area, then the case is to be referred to the State Government for its decision. Therefore, the learned counsel has prayed that the benefit of the said circular should be given to the petitioner and his case should be referred to the State Government for its decision. However, so far, the benefit has not been extended to the petitioner. 3 On the other hand, Mr. R.P. Singh, the learned AAG, contended that in the map approved by the UIT the petitioner's plot falls within the facility area, therefore, the UIT is justified in reserving the said plot for construction of a Government Dispensary. For, the Government Dispensary falls within the definition of facility to be constructed for the benefit of public. Therefore, the UIT is justified in refusing to regularise the petitioner's plot. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned letter as well as the circular dated 24.12.2007. According to the circular dated 24.12.2007, a case like to the petitioner should have been referred to the State Government. However, the benefit of the said circular has not been extended to the petitioner. In the case of Col. Ajit Singh Shekhawat Vs. Jaipur Development Authority & Anr. (S.B.C.W.P. No.5934/2005 decided on 05.11.2008) in a similar situation as the present one, this Court had directed that the case be referred to the State Government. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in directing the UIT, 4 Ajmer to refer the petitioner's case to the State government for its decision. The said case shall be referred to the State Government within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The state Government is directed to decide the petitioner's case within a period of two months thereafter by a reasoned order. With these observations, this petition is, hereby, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki