JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. MAYA WATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Special Appeal Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment of a learned single judge of this Court dated 25 -8 -1980 whereby he dismissed the appeallants' writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution o, India.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case giving rise to this Special Appeal are as under: A plot of land measuring 2916 sq. ft in Khasra No. 421 at Mt. Abu was auctioned in 1960. The highest bidder was Smt. Maya Devi. The sale was approved by the Administrator. On 2 -11 -1960 at the request of Smt. Maya Devi the sale deed was executed jointly in her name and that of Smt. Budhi Devi, respondent No. 2 Smt. Budhi Devi started construction on the said plot after seeking permission from the Administrator Municipality. Against that permission, the appellants filed an appeal before the Collector, Sirohi. They also filed a writ petition in this Court which was dismissed in limine on 9 -7 -1969 with the observation that the petitioner should first approach the authority Under Section 285 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act). The appellants filed an application Under Section 285 of the Act which was dismissed on 3 -2 -1970 on the ground that the alleged infirmities were only irregularities which could be waived and the sale has become more than ten years old. The appeal filed before the Collector, Sirohi against the permission accorded to Smt. Budhi Devi was also dismissed on the same date on the ground that they have no locus standi to file the appeal as they were not the aggrieved persons. Against that order passed in the appeal, the appellants preferred a revision petition before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was dismissed on 29 -6 -1974. In the writ petition filed in this Court which has given rise to this Special Appeal, the appellants have challenged the sale of the land as well as the permission for raising construction on it. The sale of the land to Smt. Maya Deyi was challenged on the ground that she is the wife of the then Executive Officer, Bhagirath Sharma who obtained the approval for the sale of the aforesaid land from the Administrator without disclosing that the sale was being made by him in favour of his wife. That, Smt. Budhi Devi to whom half of the share was sold at the time of the execution of the sale deed was the wife of the President, District Congress Committee, Mt. Abu Another attack was that the sale deed was not executed by the Administrator and fictitious sale proceedings were shown and the auction was not conducted in the presence of the Sub Divisional Officer. It was averred that this has prejudicially affected the interest of the petitioners, who are residents and tax -payers of Mt. Abu, as they have been deprived of the right to bid at the auction which was not conducted according to the regular procedure. With these grounds of attack the prayer for quashing the order passed by the Collector, Sirohi on 3 -2 -1970 dismissing the application Under Section 285 of the Act has been made.

(3.) OUT of the six respondents, who were non -petitioners in the writ petition, Smt. Budhi Devi alone filed a reply to the writ petition and participated in the proceedings. The learned single judge by his order dated 25 -8 -1980, which is under challenge in this Special Appeal, observed that the petitioners had kept quite for a considerable period of about nine years after the sale and started agitating the sale only when the permission for construction was granted to Smt. Budhi Devi in June, 1969. It was also observed that even after petitioner's application under Section 285 of the Act was rejected, there had been great delay on their part in not availing of any remedy whatsoever for a period of more than four years. In view of these findings the learned single judge held that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief, regarding the sale of the land, from this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution.