MUNICIPAL BOARD, SIROHI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is preferred against the communication dated 15.09.2006 vide which the State Government withdrew its earlier communication dated 09.12.2005 clarifying that the mutation can be entered in the name of the petitioner-Board as well as against the order dated 29.12.2006 vide which the mutation entered in the name of the petitioner Board was cancelled.

(2.) The petitioner No. 1 is the Municipal Board, Sirohi established under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. In accordance with the provisions contained in Article 243W in Part-IXA of the Constitution read with the provisions of 12th Schedule to the Constitution, the petitioner Board was assigned the duty of preparation of plan for economic development, social justice, urban planning including town planning. In order to resolve the problems of the residents, a meeting of the City Monitoring Central Integrated Development Scheme was held for the city of Sirohi on 13.06.1988. The respondent No. 6 who was also present in the meeting, agreed to sell the land measuring 35 bighas 4 biswas and in pursuance of the same, a registered sale deed was executed by the respondent No. 6 in favour of the petitioner Board on 27.03.1989. Thereafter, the respondent No. 5 moved an application under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the act of 1955") alleging that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner Board was in violation of Section 42 of the Act of 1955. Subsequently, the said application was withdrawn by the respondent No. 5 on the ground that provision of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955 were not applicable in the case of the petitioner Board which is not a person. The said application was allowed vide order dated 09.10.1995 and the proceedings under Section 175 of the Act of 1955 stood withdrawn. Thereafter, the Tehsildar suddenly vide order dated 29.06.2005 after about 10 years cancelled the mutation entered in favour of the petitioner Board. The petitioner Board filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Sirohi against the order of the Tehsildar dated 29.06.2005. The appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 04.01.2006 and the matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar with certain directions. Meanwhile, the State Government too vide communication dated 09.12.2005 clarified that the petitioner Board being an Institution, the sale deed in favour of the petitioner Board was not hit by Section 42 of the Act and further reiterated its opinion vide its communication dated 20.12.2005 and the mutation too was entered in the name of the petitioner Board on 18.03.2006. After the matter stood settled, the State Government vide its communication dated 15.09.2006 withdrew its earlier communication dated 09.12.2005. As a result, the mutation entered in the name of the petitioner Board was cancelled. Thereafter, Shri Bhanwar Lal, son of the respondent No. 6 filed a suit under Section 88 of the Act of 1955 for declaration, partition and possession. However, the said suit has been dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Sirohi vide judgment dated 28.09.2001 and the same has attained finality.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for the said relief submitted that in the present case, the sale deed was executed in the year 1989, whereas, the mutation was cancelled in the year 2006. Hence, such an order of cancellation could not have been passed almost after 17 years. Secondly, the petitioner Board is an entity and therefore, the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner Board is not hit by Section 42 of the Act of 1955.