RAMLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMLAL and seventyone others have moved this court under art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notices, dated March 30, 1960, October 6/8 1960 and March 17, 1961 requiring them to vacate certain plots of land in wards Nos. 8 and 9 of the Hanumangarh Municipal area, and for the issue of a writ restraining the respondents from demolishing their shops on those plots. It now appears that petitioners Nos. 6, 9, 17, 55, 56 and 57 are no longer interested in continuing the proceedings.

(2.) IT has been represented by the petitioners that when they came to Hanumangarh in 1947-48 on account of the communal disturbances in Sind and the Punjab, they were allotted certain plots of land in wards Nos. 8 and 9 of Hanumangarh Municipality, as shown in their map Ex. 1. Notification Ex. 2 dated July 3, 1944 defines the boundaries of the Municipality. The land which was lying open, was divided into plots by the Municipal Board and allotted to the petitioners, or their predecessors-in-title, for construction of shops. The petitioners claim that they have been in continuous occupation of their respective plots, that they constructed 'pakka' shops during 1947-48 and that their lease-deeds were renewed by the Municipality from time to time upto 31. 3. 1954. Thereafter, fresh lease-deeds were not executed, but the Municipality continued to accept monthly rent, which has been duly paid upto 31. 3. 1960 and continues to be paid thereafter. The rent was paid as "teh Bazari" tax under the relevant rules and the petitioners claim that, in these circumstances, they became permanent leaseholders of their plots; or, at any rate, acquired statutory rights under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. Their grievance is that the notice (Ex. 9) given by the Tehsildar, Colonisation, Hanumangarh, on March 30, 1960, requires them to remove their structures from the plots within a period of one month and threatens them further that in case of default removal would be carried out by the State and the expenses recovered from the petitioners. The petitioners made a representation to the Tehsildar challenging the notice for want of jurisdiction as also on merits and also made a representation to the Bhakra Mandi Development Board, Hanumangarh. They have been informed by the Secretary of that Board on October 6/8, 1960 (vide Ex. 10) that they should remove the structures from the plots within two moths, offering alternative plots in the proposed new Mandi area. The petitioners state that while they made applications for allotment of alternative sites, they also demanded compensation for their existing structures, as also certain other facilities for rehabilitating themselves in the new premises. This request of theirs appears to have been turned down and the Commissioner, Colonisation, Bhakra, has issued another notice (Ex. 12) on March 17, 1961, calling upon the petitioners to remove their shops and the building material within one week and threatening, at the same time, that in case of default the structures would be removed at Government expense and the cost thereof realised from them as arrears of land revenue. The petitioners have pointed out that the demolition of their shops would not help in developing the market and even the width of the road would remain almost unchanged. They claim that their plots cannot be acquired without payment of compensation or taking proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, that they have a fundamental right to hold their property, that the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (Act No. XXVII of 1954) (hereinafter called the Act has not been applied to the area in question, and that the officers who issued the three impugned notices had no authority under the law to do so. The petitioners have further pointed out that in view of the peremptory nature of the notices they are not in a position to seek redress by means of a regular civil suit.