KAYUM KHAN Vs. ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition seeks to quash the orders dated April 26, 1995 and August 16, 1995.

(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that ancestors of Alam Khan were in possession of land measuring 61 x 51 ft. in Sarwana ka Mohalla village Manoharpur Tehsil Shahpura for last more than 60 years. The State Government decided to regularise the old possession and grant them Patta with regard to land in their possession and various notifications were issued. Alam Khan moved an application to Municipal Board. Manoharpur for regularisation of the possession of land in question. The Municipal Board Manoharpur after issuing notice, calling objections obtained the report of Ward Member. Who on June 15, 1983 inspected the site and reported that the land in question 61 x 50 ft. totalling 336 8/9 sq. yards was in the possession of ancestors of Bundu Khan. Thereafter Municipal Board took decision to regularise the possession after charging the price. On February 16, 1984 the amount of regularisation charges and permission fees for construction was calculated as Rs. 1069/-, which was deposited by the petitioner on November 22, 1985 and the map was approved. The sale deed was got registered by Administrator with the Sub Registrar Shahpura on April 8, 1986. On some quarry by Rajasthan Financial Corporation the Municipal Board Manoharpur cleared that the land was given to petitioner under Rule 4 of the Municipal Board (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 and the valuation of the property was assessed as Rs. 2 lacs. Subsequently after 9 years of the regulation of the land in question, the respondents No. 2 & 3 filed revision petition under section 300 before the Additional Divisional Commissioner Jaipur Division. The petitioner filed objection and submitted that the sale was in accordance with law. He further submitted that after 9 years of the construction the revision is not maintainable and only the Civil Court can set aside registered sale deed, for which the civil suit is already pending. However, vide order dated April 26, 1995 the revision petition was accepted. The review petition filed by petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated August 16, 1996. It is against these orders that the instant writ petition has been preferred.

(3.) IN the instant matter where the delay of 9 years in filing the revision petition was not explained, there should be satisfactory explanation for the exercise of revisional power after the reasonable length of time. The Additional Divisional Commissioner Jaipur Division, in my opinion, acted arbitrarily in exercising jurisdiction under Section 300 of 1959 Act after a lapse of 9 years.