JAGDISH SHARAN Vs. REVENUE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition by one Jagdish Sharan and he seeks a writ direction or order quashing the order of the Additional Collector dated 8.10 63 (Ex. P/3) as well as the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 13.2.64 dismissing the revision application of the petitioner against the Additional Collector. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to restrain the Municipal Board, Kotputli from giving effect to the order of the Additional Collector or that of the Revenue Appellate Authority. The relevant facts of the case are these:

(2.) THE petitioner is the resident of Kotputli and he has a house there. In front of the house there was a strip of land, which the petitioner claimed to be his own. On this land the petitioner wanted to raise certain construction. His case is that he applied for permission to make the construction to the Municipal Board, Kotputli. He proceeds to say that after hearing the objections that were made against the petitioner's application, the Municipal board accorded sanction to the petitioner for the construction. The order for the construction has been placed on record and marked as Ex P/1. The Petitioner maintains that in pursuance of the aforesaid order he constructed a latrine towards the south of the land in question, besides raising other constructions as per permission. After the petitioner had constructed the -latrine, respondent No. 4 Geegraj had put in an objection before the Municipal Board complaining. that the latrine constructed by the petitioner was causing nuisance. On Geegraj's objection the Municipal Board again considered the question and inspected, the site. The petitioner states that the objections of Geegraj were dismissed by the Board's resolution No. 8 dated 5.7.62 and in accordance with that resolution the petitioner's latrine was maintained. A copy of the relevant resolution of the Board has been placed on record as Ex P/8 Aggrieved of this order o the Municipal Board Geegraj went up in appeal to the Collector and the appeal came to the heard and decided by the Additional Collector The Additional Collector allowed the appeal by the impugned order holding that latrine -was a source of nuisance. The Additional Collector ordered the removal of the latrine from its present site and directed that, it could be constructed at another place. Aggrieved of this order of the Additional Collector, the petitioner went up in revision under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act 1959 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act'). The Revenue Appellate Authority, however, dismissed the revision on 13.2.64. After the dismissal of the petitioner's revision, the Municipal Board, Kotputli, issued notice to the petitioner calling upon him to remove the latrine from its site as directed in the orders of the Additional Collector and the Revenue Appellate Authority. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has moved the present writ petition.

(3.) THE writ petition has been opposed on behalf of respondent No. 4 Geegraj though he had not filed any reply to the writ petition At the time of hearing, Shri M.M. Tiwari, who appeared for Geegraj, argued that the order dated 13.7.61 was not an order granting permission for the construction of the latrine and consequently the petitioner had no right to file the writ petition. As regards the order dated 5.7.1962 Shri Tiwari argued that this order was one, which should be construed as an order granting permission. If it were so construed then Geegraj had a right of appeal according to Sub -section (12) of Section 170 of the Act. In the alternative it was contended that if this order dated 5.7.62 cannot be taken to be an order granting the permission then the petitioner has no permission for the construction of the latrine in his favour and this Court should not hear a party, who has himself committed a wrong by acting in contravention of law. Shri Tiwari also urged that the writ petition -raised a dispute about a question of fact relating to grant of permission for the latrine and as the alternative remedy of the civil suit was available, this Court should not hear the petitioner in exercise of its extra -ordinary jurisdiction. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioner had not placed on record the proceedings which resulted in the order of 13.7.61 and thus the petitioner had kept back the material facts and on this ground also this Court should not hear him.