PUSHPA Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the present writ petition claims that she has a house near Adharsheela Inside Nagori Gate, Jodhpur and in the rear side of this house, there is a plot which is in her possession since last 18 years. The State Government issued a notification dated 5/9-5-1977 being No. F.7(187) LSG/58/1152/1632. In pursuance of this notification unauthorised possessions, on certain conditions, as laid down in the aforesaid notification, were to be regularised. To get the benefit of the notification aforesaid, the petitioner applied to the respondent Municipal Council, Jodhpur for regularisation of the possession over the said plot. It was ordered by the Council that the plot in possession of the petitioner be leased out to her on payment of Rs. 6/- per Sq. Yds. The petitioner deposited the amount in relation to the plot and a lease deed was executed by the Municipal Council, Jodhpur in favour of the petitioner dated 26-3-1982 which was registered on 16-10-1982.

(2.) An application was moved against the said grant of lease in favour of the petitioner by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 before the Additional Collector, Jodhpur under Section 285 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act of 1959'). The Additional Collector set aside the order of the Municipal Council, Jodhpur dated 26-5-1982 by virtue of which the lease was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 31-5-1983 and he remanded the matter back to the Municipal Council, Jodhpur to decide the same afresh. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31-5-1983 of the Additional Collector, Jodhpur the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1738/1983. This writ petition was decided by this Court and the order of the Additional Collector was quashed vide its judgment dated 23-9-1983. This Court held that Section 285 of the Act is prohibitory in nature. In cases where the action has been completed and nothing remains to be done Section 285 is not applicable.

(3.) After these proceedings the respondent No. 5 preferred an application under Section 80 of the Act assailing the validity of the abovementioned allotment order and prayed that the lease deed be quashed. The petitioner contested the application filed by the respondent No. 5 under Section 80 of the Act. These proceedings were decided by the Additional Collector, Jodhpur vide order Annex. 1. It was held that in terms of Section 80 of the Act as the delegate of the State it can set at naught any proposal and action or proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof, if the same is incorrect, illegal or improper. Being aggrieved by this order of the Additional Collector, Jodhpur, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.