PADMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel. This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned single Judge dated 1st May 1991 whereby the learned single Judge has declined to interfere with the order passed by the Collector, Pali under Section 285 dated January 21, 1991 (Annexure-9 ).

(2.) BRIEF facts which are necessary for the disposal of the case are that there is a plot bearing No. 77 in Tilak Nagar, Pali measuring 30'x40'. The petitioner was residing in this plot since 1970. On account of the Government directions contained in the order dated 5. 9. 1977 for regularisation of illegal possessions, the petitioner-appellant proceeded to make an application. The application of the appellant was submitted in the prescribed form somewhere in the year 1978. The application of petitioner-appellant was accepted and the Municipal Board directed the petitioner-appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 93. 31 by letter dated 5. 2. 1980. The amount was duly deposited by the petitioner-appellant and the sale-deed was executed by the Municipal Board and same was registered on 10. 8. 1980 copy thereof has been filed as Annex.-1. Thereafter, the appellant proceeded to demolish the old construction on the said land and wanted raise new construction for which permission was sought from the Municipality and the same was given vide order dated 9. 10. 1980. Suddenly, on 21. 01. 1981 an order came to be passed under Section 285 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') directing the petitioner-appellant not to raise any construction on the land in question and not to enter on the land or alienate the same to anyone. A copy of the said order is placed on record as Annex.-9. It is this order which was challenged by the petitioner-appellant in this writ petition. This order was challenged on the ground that the Collector in the exercise of his jurisdiction under section 285 has no power to interfere with the permission granted by the Municipality for construction on the land as the land was sold by the Municipal Board through a proper sale-deed and as such the Collector had no jurisdiction to interfere with such sale-deed and the permission granted by the Municipality. No return was filed by the respondents. A preliminary objection was raised before the learned single Judge that the petitioner should first appear before the Collector and raise the jurisdictional question and if she fails then it is open for her to approach this Court. This objection was upheld by the learned single Judge and the writ petition was dismissed on this count. Aggrieved against this, the petitioner-appellant has filed the present appeal. The appeal was admitted and Mr. J. M. Bhandari, Advocate has appeared in pursuance thereof.

(3.) MR. Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondents, has invited our attention to a decision of this Court given in Municipal Council, Ajmer vs. Narinder Singh This case, so far as the present controversy is concerned, has no relevancy in the matter. In this case the interpretation of Section 285 did not directly come up for consideration and Hon'ble Kasliwal, J. (as he then was) only made a reference to the general power to suspend resolutions of the Board. So far as the power of the Collector is concerned the same in not disputed. But, in the present case, the Collector has invoked the power on the basis that the sale was illegal. That was not open for the Collector by re-opening the question of the legality of the sale under Section 285. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned single Judge does not appear to be correct.