BHIKE KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dt. 11.6.12 passed by the Additional District Collector, Churu, whereby pending disposal of the application preferred by the petitioner under Sec. 312 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short "the Act"), the interim relief granted vide order dt. 23.9.11, stands vacated. The petitioner preferred an application under Sec. 312 of the Act before the District Collector, Churu, questioning the resolution adopted by the Municipal Board, Rajgarh for dispossessing the petitioner from the land ad measuring 7.6' x 7' situated at Sabji Mandi, Rajgarh. Vide order dt. 23.9.11 passed by the District Collector, Churu, the execution of the order dt. 20.9.11 passed by the Municipal Board, Rajgarh directing dispossession of the petitioner, was stayed. Later, the application preferred by the petitioner was transferred for disposal to the Additional District Collector, Churu. On 31.5.12, the petitioner made an application stating that vide order dt. 23.9.11, the operation of order dt. 20.9.11 passed by the Municipal Board, Rajgarh having been stayed, the matter needs to be forwarded to the State Government for disposal in terms of the provisions of sub -Section (2) of Section 312 of the Act. According to the petitioner, after passing of the order dt. 23.9.11, the Collector/Additional District Collector exercising the power under sub -Section (1) of Section 312 had become functus officio and could not have rejected the application preferred by the petitioner on the ground that notwithstanding the grant of interim order dt. 23.9.11, the application preferred by the petitioner under sub -Section (1) of Section 312 of the Act remains pending.

(2.) AFTER due consideration, the application dt. 31.5.12 has been rejected by the Additional District Collector observing that ex parte order dt. 23.9.11 cannot be construed to be an order passed under sub -Section (1) of Section 312 and the proceedings in terms of the said provision remains pending. However, while rejecting the application preferred, the order dt. 23.9.11 passed in favour of the petitioner as aforesaid has also been vacated. Hence, this petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the order dt. 23.9.11 passed by the District Collector was an ex parte order passed pending disposal of the application and therefore, the order impugned passed after hearing both the parties vacating the interim order passed in favour of the petitioner cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that without there being any prima facie case in favour of the petitioner, the execution of the order passed by the Municipal Board could not have been stayed by the authorised officer and thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.