SHEELA KOTHARI Vs. SECRETARY, URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

(2.) As the pleaded facts would reveal, the petitioner is a joint tenant holder of the agricultural land comprising Araji No. 646 admeasuring 0.4450 hectare, Araji no. 647 admeasuring 0.0100 hectare and Araji no. 648 admeasuring 0.1850 hectare, total area 0.6400 hectares situated in Sector 14, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'disputed land'). The disputed land comprises share of 1/2 (one-half) of land between petitioner and respondents no. 2 & 3, and the other half is shared between respondents no. 4 to 6. The respondents no.2 & 3 and the petitioner entered into an agreement and executed a document, whereby the said land was divided into 27 plots and partitioned between them and plot no.7 came in the share of petitioner. An application was preferred before the Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Udaipur under Sec. 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1956') for conversion of disputed land from agricultural into non-agricultural use. However vide its order dtd. 6/10/2001, the UIT allotted only one plot to the petitioner, instead of 5 plots.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondents no. 2 & 3 prepared a fabricated, forged, unstamped and unregistered agreement, and thereafter, in collusion with UIT, Udaipur, only one plot was allotted to the petitioner by the conversion order dtd. 6/10/2001, when instead he was entitled to 5 plots. It was further submitted that the appeal preferred before the Additional Divisional Commissioner was allowed wherein it was held that Rajasthan Tenancy (Board of Revenue) Rules, 1955 are applicable for the division of co-khatedari rights of Araji land, and for implementation of Sec. 53 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act,1955, provision from Rule 18 to 21 of the Rules of 1955 have been made, and thus the division of land between the petitioner and respondents no.2 & 3 was not done in a lawful manner.