NATH MAL Vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the District judge, Bikaner reversing the judgment and decree passed by Additional Munsif, No. 2, Bikaner.

(2.) THE plaintiff -appellant instituted a suit for injunction against the defendant -respondents claiming that there is a small piece of land 'Khancha' adjacent to his house and infront of the house of defendant Tekchand and the plaintiff has also been exercising his right of ingress and out -gress through this Khancha and since the Urban Improvement Trust intended to dispose of this land and the plaintiff wanted to purchase the same and the defendant Tekchand was also interested in purchasing the said land, the present suit has been filed for injunction that the U1T may not sell this land to the defendant and the defendant may not put any restriction or obstruction in the use of this land and if the UIT wanted to dispose of this land the land should be put to public auction as required by Sub -rule (2) of Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 and should not sell the land to Tekchand by private negotiation.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant produced some additional evidence to show that he has been allowed to open the doors during the pendency of this appeal but the said application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC has already been dismissed by this Court by its order dated 5 -2 -1985. A perusal of Rule 23(2) will show that where two or more persons are interested in the strip, there shall be auction only between those whose plots or building adjoining the strip of land provided that before auctioning such strip of land a public notice shall be issued. The disputed land is not doubt adjoining to that of the house of the plaintiff but he has no opening on this land and permission to open the doors or windows had been refused and the plaintiff's door which had been opened unauthorisedly has ultimately been closed and the matter went upto the Board of Revenue, whereas the defendant's house is just in the back adjoining this land. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Dhuda Ram v. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3198 of 1984 decided on 23 -10 -1984, wherein the writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner had unauthorisedly opened one window towards the strip of land and had no existing passage or any other enforceable right over the strip of land.