LATE SHRI NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter comes up on the Board, pursuant to the 5th stay application moved in SBCWP No. 6653/2014 and 3rd stay application in SBCWP No. 6962/2017. It has been stated in the applications that the respondents No. 4 Zila Parishad, District Jaisalmer has initiated proceedings under Sec. 164 (4) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules of 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1996"), on the ground that the petitioners have not deposited the due amount of rent.

(2.) Mr. M.R. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners submits that the present writ petition had been filed in the year 2014, challenging the action of the Gram Panchayat, whereby they have sought to recover additional rent for the Mela period, over and above the monthly rent as fixed under Rule 164 of the Rules of 1996. The petitioners are having shops in the Gram Panchayat area and they are having legal tenancy governed by the Rules of 1996. The petitioners are paying monthly rent payable as per Rule 164, without any default, however, they are aggrieved of the action of the respondents, demanding additional rent for Mela period, which is not permissible under the Rules.

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate, invited attention of the Court towards various documents vide which the Gram Panchayat has not only demanded additional amount for the month of Mela, but such amount (Mela period rent) has been increased annually by 20%, even from the petitioners, who are having statutory tenancy in terms of the Rules of 1996.