CHAUTHMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of an order of the State Government under Sec. 285 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act 1959 setting a side the sale of a plot of Nazul land situated within the Municipality of Merta to the petitioner.

(2.) 'nazul land' as defined under Sec. 3 (l) (b) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 means abadi land within the limits of the Municipality or a panchayat circle or a village, town or city, vesting in the State Government. Such land is sold in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 or the rules made thereunder. Sec. 97 provides that in all cases where there are more than one applicant for the same piece of land it shall be sold to the highest bidder at a public auction. This is subject to the following provisos - (i) it shall be open to the Collector to refuse the highest bid for reasons to be recorded; (ii) small strips of lands adjoining existing buildings shall with the previous sanction of the Sub-Divisional Officer, be given at the rates fixed under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Sec. 96; and (iii) auctions under this section shall be regulated by rules made by the State Government in this behalf. Sec. 102-A gives power to the State Government to place any Nazul land at the disposal of a local authority. In exercise of the powers under this section the State Government issued notification No. F. 7 (187) LSG-58-II dated October 8, 1959, which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated October 12, 1959. Under this notification all Nazul lands lying within the jurisdiction of municipalities were placed at the disposal of the Municipal Boards and directions were issued as to how the land was to be allotted or sold.

(3.) THE next contention is that under proviso (ii) to sec. 97 of the Land Revenue Act the Board was bound to allot the disputed plot to Smt. Kanwari Bai as it was a small strip of land adjoining existing building and the power of the Sub-Divisional Officer under this proviso was exercisable by the Board under sec. 104 of the Land Revenue Act. It was argued that the sale of the plot to Chauthmal by auction was in these circumstances void. Reading sec. 97 with sec. 104 the relevant provision contained in it runs as follows - "in all cases where there are more than one applicant for the same piece of land in the abadi area it shall be sold to the highest bidder at a public auction; Provided that - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii) Small strips of land adjoining existing buildings shall with the previous sanction of the municipal board, be given at the rates fixed under sub-sections (1) and (2) of sec. 96. " It will thus be seen that a plot of land can be sold otherwise than by public auction if there is only one applicant for it. Further under proviso (ii) it is obligatory to sell small strips of lands adjoining existing buildings at fixed rates without auction provided that such sale is sanctioned by the Municipal Board. THE question which arises is as to whether the sale of land for which there is only one applicant by auction or the sale of small strips of land adjoining existing buildings by auction is void. In my opinion it is not so. A perusal of sec. 97 and the notification dated October 8. 1959 goes to show that the ordinary mode of sale is by public auction and exceptions are only permissible. I think that if in case there is only one applicant for a plot of land and the Municipal Board thinks that higher price would be fetched by public auction it can sell the plot by public auction. So far as proviso (ii) is concerned previous sanction of the Board is prescribed before small strips can be sold at fixed rates. That means that to grant sanction or not to grant it, is discretionary with the Board and a sale of a small strip of land adjoining an existing building by auction cannot be held to be void.