RADHA KISHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioners, in this writ petition,is that they are the owners in possession of house No. AMC-6. XVI/133 known as 'gopi Building', situated opposite to the Central Girls Higher Secondary School, Purani Mandi, Ajmer. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in front of petitioner's house and in between the adjoining Nala there is a strip of land measuring 47sq. yards = 40. 61 sq. meters which is vested in Municipal Council, Ajmer, respondent No. 3 in this petition. THE petitioners have also filed a copy of the site plan which is clearly indicative of the fact that the Central Girls Higher Secondary School is located just across the 60' road and opposite the petitioners- house. On the left side of the petitioners - house adjoining to the Municipal land, building of United Commercial Bank covering strip of land and Nala is located.

(2.) VIDE their letter dated 11th of March, 1981 the petitioners made a request to the respondent-Municipal Council, Ajmer (Respondent No. 3) to sell the aforesaid strip of land measuring 47 Sq. Yards, shown in pink colour in the site- plan, in their favour. . It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents had then agreed to lease out the land to the petitioners subject to their depositing Rs. 7050/- with the Municipal Council, Ajmer calculated at the rate of Rs. 150/- per square yard and other conditions stipulated therein. The petitioners had, in compliance with the said communication, deposited the aforesaid amount with the Municipal Council, Ajmer on 13th March,1981 towards costs of the land.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has further contended that it was only after the inspection of the site and granting full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner that the decision was taken that the disputed land cannot be sold to the petitioners as it would be defeating the public interest. In para 14 of the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 it is specifically stated as under: - "if the answering respondent is compelled to sell this land then the public at large will suffer. The respondent No. 3 has got no interest whatsoever in this land since this land is a public trust and it belongs to the public at large. So far as Disposal of the Urban Land Rules,1974 are concerned, it is submitted that the petitioner has used his political influence and he wants to grab this land at any cost. The answering respondent has got no power to sell this public thoroughfare to the petitioner. Rule 23 of the Municipal Council (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules,1974 is not supporting the petitioner but it is going contrary to him. No steps whatsoever have been taken for the purpose of sale of this land. Only the reserve price has been fixed by the committee, as such if any order is passed by the Administrator, it is against the Disposal of Urban Land Rules,1974. "