RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 14. 7. 92 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, order dtd. 29. 2. 92 (Annex. 6) passed by the learned Addl. Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur and order dtd. 11. 6. 92 (Annex. 7) passed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Banswara be quashed.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances : (i) The petitioner applied for allotment of strip of land in front of his house measuring 17' x 4' before the Municipal Board, Banswara. (ii) On the said application submitted by the petitioner, the Municipal Board, Banswara issued a notice on 8. 4. 87 inviting objections from all the interested persons. A copy of the said notice was placed on the Notice Board of the Municipal Board, Banswara and another copy of the said notice was also pasted on the disputed site. (iii) In pursuance of the said notice, no objection whatsoever was received from any interested person and the Municipal Board, Banswara agreed to allot the strip of land to the petitioner and a sale-deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by the Municipal Board Banswara on 13. 11. 87. (iv) The petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 5250/- is consideration for the sale of said strip of land to the Municipal Board, Banswara. (v) After execution of the registered sale-deed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner applied for permission to construct on the strip of land with a view to extend his building line. On the application submitted by the petitioner for raising construction on the strip of land, a notice inviting objection was issued by the Municipal Board and the petitioner was duly informed by letter dtd. 23. 5. 88 that the notice has been issued inviting objections on the application of the petitioner submitted for raising construction on the strip of land. The petitioner was further directed not to raise construction on the strip of land till the permission was granted by the Municipal Board, Banswara. (vi) The petitioner was granted permission to raise construction of a wall vide order dtd. 16. 9. 88 passed by the Municipal Board, Banswara. (vii) That nearly after lapse of more than one year, the respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal before the Collector, Banswara under Section 170 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1959) read with Rajasthan Municipal (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1974) against the order of allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner by the Municipal Board. Notice of the said appeal was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his objection before the Collector. Banswara against the maintainability of the appeal filed by respondent No. 5 in the matter of allotment of strip of land in favour of the petitioner. (viii) That the learned Collector, Banswara after considering the rival contentions of the parties rejected the appeal filed by respondent No. 5 vide order dtd. 21. 12. 88 (Annex. 5) and upheld the allotment of strip of land made in favour of the petitioner by the Municipal Board, Banswara. (ix) Feeling aggrieved by the order dtd. 21. 12. 88 (Annex. 5) passed by the Collector, Banswara, the respondent No. 5 Shri Gurnamal preferred a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Banswara. The said revision petition was transferred to the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur for decision. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur vide its order dtd. 29. 2. 92 (Annex. 6) allowed the the said revision petition filed by the respondent No. 5 and set aside the sale made in favour of the petitioner. (x) After passing of the order by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur dtd. 29. 2. 92 allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 5. The Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Banswara has cancelled the allotment of strip of land made in favour of the petitioner vide order dtd. 11. 6. 92 (Annex. 7 ). Hence, this writ petition with the above prayer.

(3.) AFTER perusing the record as well as reply filed by the respondents it is clear that for the strip of land in question, objections were invited but within that period the respondent No. 5 did not raise any objection. From the record, it is also clear that for same strip of land, the respondent No. 5 had also applied for allotment and his application was pending and allotment of land which was made in favour of the petitioner was not made through auction as provided under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 23 of the Rules of 1974.