Rajasthan High Court took serious note of Municipal Corporation's inaction against encroachers that led to its inability to hand over possession of auctioned plots to the successful bidders, and opined that the body being part of the government was not supposed to function in a manner that led to litigations.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a bunch of petitions that alleged non-handing over of possession of auctioned plots by the government, as well as impleadment applications by other people alleging right over the said plots on account of having possession, who were being treated as encroachers by the Municipal Corporation.

“By its conduct and performance, the State must create a sense of security in the mind of the citizens and citizens while dealing with the State must be in a position to rely upon the representations made by it. A special sanctity attaches to its acts; a presumption of correctness is available in respect of them and a sense of security is assumed in relation thereto.”

In the background of disputed questions of rights and titles over the subject properties, the Court directed constitution of a committee comprising of Higher Officials of Department of Local Self Government and Commissioner of Jodhpur Municipal Corporation, to decide the representations of the petitioners as well as the applicants.

For context, the matter pertained to 4 plots at Kabir Marg, Jodhpur, who were alleged to have been allocated to the petitioners in an auction. However, their possession was not handed over to the petitioners. On the other hand, certain other people, who had filed applications for impleadment, were contending their rights over the plots based on possession.

The latter set of people (applicants) were treated as encroachers by the Municipal Corporation based on a report by a Joint Commission, and the Court highlighted that it was based on their encroachment that the Corporation was unable to hand over possession to the petitioners.

In this background, the Court referred to Surendra Prasad Mishra Vs. O.N.G.C. (1987) where the Calcutta High Court held that where Govt. or Governmental agency makes a promise knowing or intending that it could be acted upon by the promisee and if the promise acting in accordance therewith and thereby alters his position, the Govt. or the Governmental agency would be held to be bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Govt. or the Governmental agency at the instance of the promisee, notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise or that the promise has not been reduced to writing…

The Court observed that since the possession could not be handed over owing to encroachment, there was no fault of the petitioners and they could not be allowed to suffer due to “negligence, callousness and non-maintenance of the essential record” by the Corporation.

While highlighting inaction on part of the Corporation against the encroachers, it was held the Corporation could not be allowed to sit over the matter, and take any excuse regarding handing over the possession. They were duty bound to do so.

At the same time, while underscoring Article 21 and the Magna Carta, the Court highlighted the requirement of following due process of law before taking any action against any individual or establishment.

Hence, the State was directed to constitute the aforementioned committee to adjudicate upon the representations of the petitioners as well as the applicants to close the allotment process, within a period of 3 months.

Accordingly, the petitions were disposed of.

Title: Smt. Kiran v Municipal Corporation & Anr., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 344

Click Here To Read/Download Order

The Rajasthan High Court enhanced the compensation payable to a teacher terminated illegally, from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 20 lakh, observing that the amount awarded by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal was “shockingly disproportionate”.

The Court was dealing with a plea by a Hindi teacher who had served the respondent-school for around 20 years before her services were terminated in 2015 on the ground that there were no students for the subject of Hindi. The Tribunal had held the termination to be bad in law but, as the teacher had subsequently attained the age of superannuation, awarded her lump-sum compensation of Rs. 1 lakh in lieu of reinstatement.

The bench of Justice Anuroop Singhi took note of the fact that the teacher was a permanent employee, had rendered unblemished service for around 20 years, was not terminated for any misconduct and was not gainfully employed between the date of her termination and superannuation. The finding that her termination was bad in law had also attained finality, as the school had not challenged it.

“…keeping in view the mathematical calculation of the minimum emoluments which the petitioner would have earned during the interregnum period, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly disproportionate, and it would be just and proper to direct the respondent-School to make a lump-sum payment of Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.”

For context, the petitioner was appointed in 1995, and after around 20 years of services, was terminated by the school in 2015 on the ground that there were no students for her subject i.e. Hindi. This was challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled the termination to be bad in law and awarded compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh to the petitioner.

The present petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the quantum of the compensation. It was argued that she should have been awarded her entire salary and benefits which she would have been entitled to had the termination not taken place.

It was submitted that not granting such benefits allowed the respondent to take advantage of their wrong and legitimized an illegal act.

After hearing the contentions, the Court affirmed the finding of the Tribunal about petitioner's termination being bad in law. However, the Court observed that no one could be allowed to benefit from their own fault

“…it was equally incumbent upon the Tribunal to determine the dues payable to the petitioner, which would have met the minimum respectable yard-stick, not only in monetary terms, but also to pay back the respect and honor which the petitioner would have earned, if she would have rendered the services for the entire period…the quantification of amount to be paid to the petitioner could have been such which would have kept the respondents in a win-win position and left the petitioner high and dry and is shockingly disproportionate.”

The Court observed that the petitioner's monthly salary was Rs. 50,000/- and there was a period of more than 67 months between her termination and date of superannuation. This resulted in a figure of around Rs. 33,50,000/-.

However, the Court held that this figure itself could not be treated as determinative basis for awarding compensation. In this background, the Court took into account other factors, as elaborated above.

The Court also took into account several principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases in this regard, and taking guidance from the same, enhanced petitioner's compensation from Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs. 20 Lakhs, payable within 2 months.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

Title: Rani Gupta v Management Committee, Maheshwari Public School and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 343

For Petitioners: Mr. Sunil Samdaria with Mr. Arihant Samdaria

For Respondents: Mr. Vinod Goyal; Mr. Bhavya Kala for Mr. Devansh Sharma, Dy.GC

Click Here To Read/Download Order