INDER SEN Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions preferred by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involve identical questions of facts and law and are thus being decided together by this single order.

(2.) Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the writ petitions are noted herein below.

(3.) The petitioners were having agricultural lands, which subsequently came under the limits of the Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner. Being desirous of conversion/regularisation of their plots, the petitioners filed applications under Section 90B of the Land Revenue Act read with Section 60(4) of the Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 and expressed their willingness to surrender the plots and to seek regularisation thereof by the UIT in terms of the State Government's notification dated 10.7.1999. Requisite conversion charges, lease money, compounding amount and all other admissible levies were deposited by the petitioners along with affidavits, indemnity bonds, surrender deeds, maps etc. Upon receiving the applications filed by the petitioners as above, the Senior Drafts-man cum Town Planner, UIT, Bikaner prepared a factual report where after, the UIT recommended regularisation of the plots in question in favour of the respective petitioners by letter dated 17.3.2001. Registered lease deeds came to be executed between the UIT Bikaner and the petitioners on 20.3.2001 and the plots in question were regularised on lease basis for a period of 99 years on the very same day i.e. 20.3.2001. Thereafter, in some of the cases, even no objection certificates were issued so as to entitle the respective leaseholder to take loan from the banks by mortgaging the plots. However, the petitioners claim that to their utter shock and surprise, they received show cause notices dated 2.7.2001 issued by the UIT calling upon them to show cause as to why the lease deeds executed in their favour may not be nullified and as to why the amounts deposited by them towards regularisation should not be fore fitted on the ground that the regularisation was managed by playing fraud. Each of the petitioners filed detailed replies on 7.8.2001 countering the allegation levelled in the show cause notices that the lease deeds had been acquired by misrepresentation etc. However, the Secretary, UIT, Bikaner issued separate orders dated 8.8.2001 cancelling the registered lease deeds issued in favour of the petitioners and directed forfeiture of the amounts deposited by them for procuring the lease deeds in question. Being aggrieved by the order dated 8.8.2001 passed by the Secretary, UIT, Bikaner in each case, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of these writ petitions.