PARESHAR SONI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant Special Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, the appellant-petitioner has sought the relief of setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 19-7-99 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 2159/1997 and allowing the writ petition as prayed therein.

(2.) The facts, relevant and necessary for decision of the instant Special Appeal, in succinct, are that the appellant purchased an old house from one Smt. Shanti Kumari Lodha vide registered sale deed dated 15-5-87. The said property is situated at Moti Chowk, Jodhpur. Smt. Shanti Kumari acquired ownership and possession of the said property by a judgment and decree dated 6-6-72 passed by the Calcutta High Court in Civil Suit No. 867/1934. After purchase of said property, the appellant filed an application under Section 170 (1) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short, "the Act" hereinafter) before the respondent Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur seeking permission for raising construction of shops and residential house. Respondent did not respond the notice and, therefore, a notice under Section 170 (8) of the Act was served upon the respondents fixing a duration of 15 days. Even that notice was not paid any heed and then invoking the deeming clause, the appellant started construction. Vide impugned letter dated 24-5-1997 (Annx.2), the respondents raised a demand of Rs. 1,61,874/- as conversion charges, Rs. 1619/- for construction fees and Rs. 27,409/- as compounding fees. Appellant filed representation Annx. 3 against the impugned order/letter Annx. 2 dated 24-5-1997 challenging the validity of the demand letter Annx. 2 and stating therein that the property is nearly 200 years' old and reference thereof has been given in the Patta of the year 1865 belonging to a neighbouring house and as such, being a free-hold property, no commercial charges can be levied. However, the appellant deposited Rs. 1619/-towards construction fees vide Annx.4. The representation Annx. 3 could yield nothing. Ultimately, the appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition. The respondents filed reply stating therein that the provisions of Section 173-A of the Act permits the State Government to allow any person to use the land for the purpose other than for which it was originally allotted. It has further been stated in the reply that the regulation of the areas, markets etc. are all within the compass of the Act and the Patta issued by the earlier State would also remain subject to the provisions of the Act. The further stand taken in the reply is that appellant had not produced the copy of the Patta to show the rights and the conditions thereunder. After hearing the parties, the learned single Judge, vide impugned judgment and order dated 19-7-1999, dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground of non-production of Patta.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment & order impugned, as also the record of the case.