CHAMPA LAL Vs. STATE OF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that a land was allotted for establishing a petrol pump in the name of Shri Ganpat Singh S/o. Thakur Durjan Singh, who was proprietor of M/s. J. J. Co-operative Stores, Bhinmal by lease deed dated 20. 05. 1955. According to the petitioner, instead of moving an application for renewal of the land by the original allottee, an application for unoccupied Government land for establishing a petrol pump was submitted by Janak Singh S/o. Harnath Singh giving address of J. J. Store, Station Road, Bhinmal (Raj. ). This application was submitted on 22nd Sept. , 1977. Upon this application, after taking into consideration the fact that said petrol pump is in operation since 1955, lease was renewed for further period of 20 years. It appears from the order dated 30th Sept. , 1991 (Annex. 3) certain more amount was charged for renewal of the lease. THE said lease was converted into a lease for 99 years by order dated 24. 07. 1992 (Annex. 4 ). It is submitted that the Patta was issued to the respondent No. 3 on 29. 07. 1992, which is a registered document.

(3.) A bare perusal of the facts clearly reveals that this matter is relating to the private dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3. The dispute arose in the year 1985 that too in the matter where lease was granted in the year 1955. The allegation of encroachment over the land by the respondent No. 3 is from atleast year 1985 for which a complaint was lodged by the father of the petitioner on 9th Sept. , 1985. It is relevant to mention here that if it was a land of private person as stated in the complaint by saying that respondent No. 3 encroached upon the land of some neighbours and obstructed the way of the petitioner and the other plot holders, then that was their own independent civil right and they could have protected their own right in their own capacity. If the petitioner or any other person was owner of any property or acquired any right under the law to hold the property, then that right should have been protected by the petitioner and effected persons in time. The petitioner's father himself raised objections in the year 1985 but without pursuing the matter to the logical end. It appears from the complaint filed by the petitioner that the order of removal of encroachment was set aside by the District Collector in appeal and against which the revision petition was also filed before the Divisional Commissioner and the matter was remanded back to the Municipal Board.