VINOD KUMAR Vs. DIRECTOR LOCAL BODIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants in this special appeal have assailed the judgment dated 3. 1. 2006 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. In the writ petition, the appellants challenged the order dated 22. 4. 2004 passed by the Director, Local Bodies, Rajasthan, jaipur, under which the revision petition filed by Murti Shriman Thakur Bihariji Virajman, through its Pujari Mahant Rakeshdas Chela Shri Goverdhandas (respondent No. 2) was allowed and the resolution No. 9 (1) 2 dated 7. 7. 96 passed by the Municipal board, Udaipurwati regularising possession of the appellants on the land in question was set aside. THE revision petition was filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities ct, 1959 which provides that the State Government or any authority authorised by the State Government may, so as to satisfy itself about the correctness, illegality or propriety of an order passed by or on behalf of the board, call for and examine the relevant record and may reverse or modify such order.

(2.) THE Director of Local Bodies, Rajasthan, allowed the said revision petition on the premises that the land in dispute in property of the deity namely; Mandir Murti Shri thakur Bihariji, who is perpetual minor. THE Municipal Board could not confer title of such land on any person by way of regularisation of possession without permission of the competent Court. It was held that the resolution passed by the board to the said effect was nullity. THE properties in question belong to the public trust which is liable to be registered as such under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. A copy of the said order was endorsed to the Commissioner, Devsthan Department, for necessary action. Liberty was given to the petitioner to file a regular suit till the trust was duly registered. THE Director, Local Bodies thus on examination of the relevant records came to the conclusion that the Municipal Board did not make proper enquiry so as to satisfy itself about the status of the land prior to passing the impugned resolution. the order of regularisation was passed merely on the basis of report of a clerk. Neither the members of the Board inspected the site of the land nor did the executive officer of the board made any enquiry as to how the appellants came in possession of such land and who was having the possession/title of the land there before. THE Director, Local Bodies therefore, set aside the resolution referred to supra holding that the Municipal board did not have any power to regularise the land in favour of the appellants on the basis of prolonged possession. THE appellants however, were set at liberty to approach the competent civil Court for desired relief.

(3.) IN our view the Director, Local Bodies has rightly held that title of the land of a temple could not be conferred on the appellants by regularising their possession without due permission from the court of competent jurisdiction and therefore, he rightly set aside the resolution passed by the Board to the said effect.