KHUBDAN Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, praying annulment of impugned order dated 11.04.2014 (Annexure 6) passed by Director, Local Self Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur dismissing the revision petition filed by petitioner and has also prayed for repudiation of proceedings for conversion of use of land and issuance of lease deed dated 05.05.2007 by the Municipal Board, Barmer in favour of respondent No.2.

(2.) The facts, as narrated in the writ petition, in nut-shell, are that petitioner Khubdan purchased a plot in Khasra No.1468 presently situated in Indira Colony, Barmer from one Deravar Singh in the name of his wife Lehar Kanwar and daughter Pushpa (respondent No.3 & 4) vide agreement dated 24.12.1987 and later on respondent No.3 & 4 on 07.08.2002 executed a sale agreement in his favour in respect of the said plot. Thereafter, petitioner vide agreement dated 05.07.2011 sold the plot to one Hukam Singh and when he proceeded to get the sale deed registered, it was revealed that the said plot has already sold been by respondent No.3 and 4 to his son respondent No.2 Rewatdan by an illegal agreement dated 30.12.2006 who in turn filed an application for conversion of the use of land for residential purpose and after conversion got lease deed registered in his name. It is specifically averred that while considering the application of respondent No.2, respondent No.5 without following due process of law completed the proceeding in single day and allowed conversion of land in his favour. Subsequently, fifth respondent issued lease deed dated 05.07.2007. It is also averred that when Hukam Singh, the purchaser of the land came to know about issuance of lease deed in favour of respondent No.2, he filed a suit against petitioner and respondent No.2 to 4 for specific performance and injunction, which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Barmer. It is further averred that petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No.1 Director, Local Self Department against grant of lease deed in favour of respondent No.2 but the same was dismissed without considering the record and overlooking the illegalities and irregularities committed by respondent No.5. As per petitioner, respondent No.1 Director, Local Self Government, has the powers to cancel the lease deed as lease deed was executed in pursuance to the orders of respondent No.5 allowing conversion of the land but the Director, Local Self Department has not redressed his grievances and dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable, as such, he has got no other alternate or efficacious remedy else to approach this Court against impugned order dated 11.04.2014 as well as for rescinding of proceedings for conversion of land use and issuance of lease deed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Narendra Rajpurohit, argued that Section 327 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act 2009 confers jurisdiction on respondent No.1 to consider illegalities and irregularities committed by local bodies while discharging their functions and in exercise of such powers it can set aside the order of conversion and consequential issuance of lease deed, however, by not entertaining revision, it has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested. Learned counsel would contend that order impugned, therefore, suffers from the vice of an error apparent on the face of record. Learned counsel has urged that the conversion proceedings are undertaken in a single day further raises doubts about its legality which ought to have been examined by the revisional authority. With these submissions, learned counsel has argued that the conversion proceedings are bad in eye of law and are liable to be set aside. It is vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity was given to him before permitting conversion of land use. Learned counsel would contend that before passing the order permitting conversion of land use, requisite notification was not published in the newspaper for inviting objections having wide circulation in the area, and therefore, the order as such is bad in law. Mr. Rajpurohit has also urged that the fifth respondent has not made any endeavour to inspect the site and has manipulated the maneuvered the report including constructions at the site for facilitating issuance of the impugned order, and therefore, the same is not sustainable. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.