KISHAN SINGH Vs. NAGAR PALIKA JAISALMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY an order dated 19.12.1978, the respondent No. 1 Jaisalmer Nagar Palika declared the property including well as personal property of the Jagirdar and issued no objection certificate. Shri Amba Lal Ojha - present respondent No. 2 (who has died during the pendency of the petition and in his place Chainpura Panchayat has intervened as late Amba Lal Ojha was representing the Village Panchayat) made an application under Section 285(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short 'Act') before the Collector, Jaisalmer. Meanwhile, the petitioner No. 1 sold the property in question to the petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 by registered sale deed on 26.12.1978. Finally, the then Local Self Minister Bhanwar Lai Sharma of the State Government by his impugned order dated 26.8.1994 set aside the order passed by the Nagar Palika, Jaisalmer on 19.12.1978. This order is challenged by the petitioners in the present petition. It is challenged mainly on the ground that before passing the order at Annex. A/4 dated 19.12.1978, the Hon'ble Minister neither gave notice nor gave any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner No. 1 Kishan Singh, therefore, the impugned order is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that neither the petitioner No. 1 nor his counsel were present before the Minister at the time of hearing of the matter, still the Minister has stated in his order that he had heard both the sides,, which is clearly wrong.

(2.) APART from the fact that there is a gross delay of almost one year in challenging the impugned order at Annex A/4 passed by the Minister on 26.8.1994, the petitioners have not made either the State of Rajasthan as party respondent in this petition nor the concerned Minister. In view of this, the allegation made against the Minister that the petitioners were not heard cannot be considered or accepted. The principle is well settled that when specific allegations are made in the petition against the concerned person, then he or she should be there in the petition as respondent. No one can be condemned unlicard and no adverse order can be passed behind his back.

(3.) FOR the reasons stated above, this petition was required to be dismissed. However, before parting, I must state that a genuine grievance was made by late Amba Lal - respondent No. 2 against the order passed by the Nagar Palika, Jaisalmer in favour of the present petitioners. The property consists of a well (kuhan) which was used by the people of village for fetching water. It was maintained by the Nagar Palika itself for the use of the people of the village and for such property also, the Nagar Palika passed the order in favour of the petitioners on 19.12.1978. Thus, on merits also, the impugned order at Annex. A/4 dated 26.8.1994 passed by the Local Self Minister of the State is not required to be interfered.