ABDUL HAMEED JAMAL Vs. NAGPUR IMPROVMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of N. I. T. plot No. 48 mauza Bidipeth, nagpur under Sakkardara Street Scheme, nagpur. The said plot was allotted by respondent no. 1 in the year 1987. The petitioner has constructed house thereon and resided therein. There is an irregular piece of land admeasuring 438 sq. ft. adjoining to the above plot of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for grant of said land in the year 1987 and it was considered by respondent no. l by resolution dated 25-10-1991. Respondent no. 2 had also applied for the said plot being owner of a regular piece of land just adjacent to the irregular piece of land as referred above. His claim was negatived. Therefore, he filed Civil suit No. 2567/1991 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Nagpur. The petitioner tried to intervene in the said suit by an application dated 14-2-1992. However, the said application was rejected. The petitioner filed a civil revision application against the said order which was pending at the time of filing of the writ petition, but disposed of later on.

(2.) Respondent no. 1 by notice dated 10-6-1992 called the petitioner, as well as, respondent no. 2 and after hearing both the parties passed impugned resolution dated 21-12-1992 in favour of respondent no. 2, thereby impliedly reversing the resolution dated 25-10-1991.

(3.) We are also convinced that whole purpose of the Rule is to make the plot regular. By granting this irregular plot in favour of respondent no. 2 made the plot regular. It could have been irregular if granted in favour of petitioner as his rectangular plot is adjacent to the triangular plot in question. Now, respondent no. 2's plot after this allotment became regular which is as per the rule in question. In view of this, we are of the view that the action of the respondent is within the frame work of law and record and needs no interference. In this background, Resolution dated 21-12-1992 as finally adopted by resolution dated 24-10-1993 is just, proper and legal and is strictly in consonance with the rules and therefore, it cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and/or contrary to the provisions of law. The petition is, therefore, accordingly dismissed. Interim order also stands vacated. No costs. Petition dismissed.