SHIV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a 'kucchi Basti' in Ward No. 12 within the Municipal area of Town Nokha. The petitioner claims to be in possession of about 1600 sq. yards' piece of land in this ward. It appears that in the year 1981, some particulars were invited by the Municipal Board, Nokha regarding the unauthorised possession of people on any land within the Municipal area and the petitioner submitted his application vide Anx. R-2/1, a copy of which has been filed by respodent no. 2, along with his affidavit dated 14. 11. 81. It appears that the Municipal Board again invited applications for regularisation of the unauthorised occupation vide Anx. R/2/2 dated 16. 8. 84 and the parties concerned were required to submit the proof of their possession between 22. 8. 84 and 6. 9. 84. Later, another notice was issued by the Municipal Board on 1. 10. 88, a copy of which is Anx. R-2/3. According to this notice, a camp was held for the purpose of regularisation in the ward concerned on 3. 10. 88. It is admitted by respondent no. 2 vide para 7 of the reply that this notice was served upon the petitioner only on 3. 10. 88. The case of the petitioner is that as a matter of fact, no meeting was held on 3. 10. 88 as envisaged by notice Anx. R-2/3, whereas the case of respondent no. 2 is that the scheduled meeting was held on that day. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the notice of this meeting was served on the petitioner only on 3. 10. 88, leaving no time for him to appear at the meeting and submit proof in support of his possession over the land in dispute. Then, on 7. 3. 89, the petitioner moved an application, a copy of which has been filed by respondent no-2 as Anx. R-2/4 stating therein that in the survey report dated 1. 1. 81 his possession has already been recorded and that was suffi-cient proof of his possession and he prayed that his possession may be regularised. No action appears to have been taken on this application. However, according to the petitioner, he was threatened with dispossession from the land in dispute and, therefore, he approached this court by way of present writ petition and on 13. 4. 89, a stay order was passed in his favour directing the status quo to be maintained as it existed on that day. The petitioner has prayed in the writ petition that an appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued to the respondents to execute a sale-deed or lease-deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the impugned land in after depositing of the amount as mentioned in the information letter dated 1. 10. 88 and further the respondents may be restrained from interfering with the petitioner's possession over the land in dispute or demolishing his house standing therein. The case of respondent no. 2-Municipal Board, Nokha, however, is that, as a matter of fact, the petitioner was not at all in possession of any part of the land and somehow or the other, he got his possession recorded in the survey report and it was on the basis of that survay report, that he claimed possession. According to the Municipal Board, it was on account of this clendestine effort on the part of the petitioner to get his possession recorded in the survey report, that he has thought it proper to claim the regularisation of the land. It was also urged that despite the notice dated 16. 8. 84 (Anx. R-2/2) and further notice dated 1. 10. 88 (Anx. R-2/3), the petitioner failed to produce any proof of his possession and therefore, he was not entitled to get his possession regularised. It was further pointed out by learned counsel for respondent no. 2 that the petitioner is a lier inasmuch as in his affidavit which was submitted along with Anx. R-2/1 in 1981, he has stated his age to be 21 years, whereas in another affidavit Anx. 3, which was sworn on 7. 3. 89, he has stated his age to be 25 years, and on it goes to show that as a matter of fact,, the petitioner had no old possession over the land in dispute. Lastly, it was also urged that according to the Rules of regularisation, only pieces of land not exceeding 500 sq. yards could be regularised by respondent no. 2 and since the petitioner claims regularisation of a piece of land measuring 1600 sq. yards, he cannot claim regularisation.

(2.) AN application has also been filed on behalf of one Jeth Mal for being impleaded as a party to this writ petition. He claims that the land in dispute had been purchased by him from the Municipal Board, Nokha in the year 1975 and, therefore, he is interested in the matter. He has produced a copy of the sale-deed dated 24. 12. 75, according to which Plot No. 86 measuring 600 sq. yeards had been sold to him.

(3.) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and respondent no. 2 (Municipal Board, Nokha) is directed to dispose of the petitioner's application Anx. R-2/1 and Anx. R-2/4 within three months from today, after notice to the petitioner. Jethmal shall also be free to move application before the Municipal Board to afford him an opportunity of hearing and it will be for the Municipal Board to dispose of that application. .