RANU LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 8:7 -19'5 (Ex. 15) and Ex. 15 -A.

(2.) THE petitioner has an immovable property situated at Chittanion -ka -Dhora in Balotra. This land is a patta sud land of the petitioner. In the eastern side of the petitioner's house the non -petitioner No. 3 Manak Chand purchased a plot of land and raised construction of house in the year 1966. In the western side of the petitioner's house some khalsa land was lying vacant. Non -petitioner No. 3 Manakchand applied to the Municipality for purchase of some portion of the khalsa land. The petitioner opposed to the purchase of the portion of land by non -petitioner No. 3. It is alleged that after pursuation by non -petitioner agreed to withdraw his objection petition on the clear understanding that non -petitioner Manak Chand will not purchase and interfere with the rest of the khalsa land situated adjacent to the house of the petitioner. It is also alleged that after some time non -petitioner No. 3 resiled from the agreement and applied for purchase of rest of the khalsa land. The petitioner again opposed the said purchase of strip of land. After protracted litigation before the Municipality and the Collector, Barmer, ultimately the Municipal Board thought it proper to sell the aforesaid khalsa land to the petitioner and Manakchand allowing half share of the land i.e. 107.62 sq. ft. to non -petitioner Manakchand and the other remaining share i.e. 105.6 sq. ft. to the petitioner. Accordingly a sale order was passed of half share each to both the petitioner and non -petitioner No. 3. The resolution of the Board has been placed on record as Ex. 12. Thereafter, by an another resolution permission was given to the petitioner Ranulal to open a door and put the railings. The appeal of Ranulal was allowed by this resolution (Ex. 12) dated 31 -12 -1982. Aggrieved against these two resolutions, non -petitioner Manakchand filed an appeal before the Collector, against the permission granted to the petitioner for opening of a door and putting railings and a revision against the order whereby the strip of land was apportioned between the petitioner and non -petitioner Manakchand before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Revenue Appellate Authority by its order dated 8 -7 -1985 set aside the order of the Municipal Board apportioning the strip of land between the petitioner and non -petitioner and directed that whole of the land should be sold to Manankchand non -petitioner and no condition should be imposed on Manakchand for construction. The resultant position was that the sale of the half portion of land in favour of the petitioner was set aside. Non -petitioner Manakchand's appeal before the Collector against the permission granted for construction of a door was rejected by the Collector by his order dated 4 -5 -1983 Ex. 14. Against this order also a revision was preferred before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Appellate Authority by its order Ex. 15 -A dated 8 -7 -1985 set aside the order of the Collector. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging both the orders of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 8 -7 -1985 Ex. 15 and Ex. 15 -A.

(3.) THE next question is regarding the validity of the order Ex. 15A. Mr. Dalpatraj has opposed that the order Ex. 15A passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority is related to permission for construction, therefore, this gives a separate cause of action and it should be challenged by a separate writ petition. I would have upheld the objection of Mr. Dalpatraj, but in view of the fact that both the questions are very closely inter -related and the Revenue Appellate Authority has also disposed them the on same date by separate order. Therefore, I am not inclined to uphold the objection of Mr. Dalpat Raj. In this order the Municipal Board as well as well as the Collector have permitted the petitioner to make necessary alterations in his existing premises. This has been set aside by the. Revenue Appellate Authority in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. In view of the changed circumstances and the view taken by me the sale of strip of land in favour of the petitioner I think that the permission granted by the Municipal Board and confirmed in appeal by the Collector should not have been interfered with lightly by the Revenue Appellaty Authority. The reason given by the Revenue Appellate Authority in the changed circumstances does not hold good and I set aside the Order Ex. 15 -A also.