Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Gulam Nabi vs Collector Kota on 9 May, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5116/2001
Gulam Nabi S/o Hazi Rasul Moh.,aged about 58 years,
Gumanpura, Kota.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. District Collector, Kota.
2. Municipal Council, Kota Through Its Administrator.
3. Commissioner, Municipal Council, Kota.
4. Director, Local Bodies Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhusudan Purohit on behalf of Mr.K.K.Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shivang Vashisth on behalf of Mr. Anil Metha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Judgment / Order 09/05/2019
1. Petitioner by way of this writ petition assails the order dated 16.4.1998 passed by Director, Local Bodies alongwith orders dated 22.9.1997 & 20.1.1992 passed by the District Collector, Kota & Administrator, Municipal Council, Kota whereby the petitioner's allotment made vide order dated 24.10.1988, was cancelled and the revision filed by the petitioner was rejected.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the cancellation of allotment of plot of the petitioner by impugned orders of District Collector dated 22.9.1997 & 20.1.1997 is wholly illegal and (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 12:11:21 AM) (2 of 6) [CW-5116/2001] unjustified and the petitioner cannot be held to be a trespasser on the land. It is his submission that the petitioner was in continuous possession of the plot since 1972 as a licencee and had been regularly depositing the licence fees with the Municipal Council. Further submission of the petitioner is that part of the land measuring 720 Sq. Ft. and styling it to a strip of land in favour of Hazari Lal S/o Roop Chand Banjara whereby the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner vide annexure no.1 on 24.11.1988 for the purpose of regularization of plot in his favour, the same was wrongfully cancelled vide noticed dated 2.11.1988. Against the order dated 2.11.1988 the petitioner preferred a writ petition No. 172/1989 which came to be decided by this court vide order dated 9.8.1991 holding the order dated 2.11.1988 to be unjustified. The High Court vide order dated 9.8.1991 directed the Municipal Council, Kota to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and take action in according with law, if it so chooses, within one month from the date of order served upon them. Thereafter, the respondents issued a notice to the petitioner on 26.11.1991 and petitioner submitted his reply on 3.12.1991 wherein the petitioner pointed out with regard to the aforesaid fact as has been noted hereinabove. It was submitted that the petitioner was rightly entitled for allotment of the plot and there was no misstatement made by him before allotment was made.
4. After examining the reply, Administrator, Municipal Council, Kota vide order dated 20.1.1992 found that the allotment of plot (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 12:11:21 AM) (3 of 6) [CW-5116/2001] to the petitioner was illegal and not in conformity with the order of the State Government dated 21.1.1982 whereby the allotment could be made, only with respect to those who were living in Kacchi Basti or those who do not have any other plot in their name or title. The Administrator found that so far as the petitioner is concerned the plot in question did not fall in Kacchi Basti but was a part of a permanently settled housing scheme by name of 'New Colony' and further it was also found that the petitioner was having another residential house. In these circumstances, the Administrator has taken a decision that land could not have been allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision petition against the same which was rejected vide order dated 22.9.1997 by the Collector and thereafter another revision was preferred before the Director Local Bodies which has also been rejected by order dated 16.4.1998.
5. Learned counsel submits that in all three orders the submission of the petitioner is that the strip of land which was allotted to Hazari Lal S/o Roop Chand Banjara has not been considered and thus the ground of discrimination was required to be examined. Further, he submits that there is a difference of opinion with regard to usage of the plot of land which was allotted to the petitioner for the purpose of park. Considering the nature of plot there is an opinion on record that the plot is not suitable for the park. It is also submitted that the Municipal Council did not intend to use the land for the park purposes. Temporary sheds which were existed on the plot were wrongly demolished and possession was wrongly taken from the petitioner. (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 12:11:21 AM)
(4 of 6) [CW-5116/2001]
6. Per contra, Learned Additional Adv.General has shown his handicap on account of non-cooperation of the officers of the Municipal Council, Kota who have not brought any document with regard to present case in spite of having been informed by the office of Learned Additional Adv.General. Copy of the writ petition alongwith reply was made available by the petitioner to the Learned Additional Adv.General who submits that his stand may be examined in terms of the reply filed by the Municipal Council which is on record.
7. I have considered the submissions and gone through the reply filed by the respondents. As per reply it is stated that the land is in the shape of a triangle and though it is admitted that from the part of said land, measuring 720 Sq. Ft. was allotted to Hazari Lal and registered in his name on 14.7.1986; However, the contention is that the strip of land was sold by UIT, Kota and not by Municipal Council, Kota. It is stated that allotment made in favour of the petitioner was by mistake and as soon as the same came to notice that allotment was wrongfully made, the same was cancelled and the petitioner was informed that the plot cannot be alloted to him and patta can be given only to those who is reside in Kacchi Basti and had no other residence available in Municipal Council, Kota. Inspection was conducted by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Kota of the site and it was found that land is suitable for developing a park. Thus, the question before this court is whether allotment could at all be made in favour of the petitioner relating to the land in question. It is noticed that the petitioner was in possession of the land as a (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 12:11:21 AM) (5 of 6) [CW-5116/2001] licencee from 1972. However, this land does not fall in Kacchi Basti and the scheme of regularization of plots is only related to Kacchi Basti and further in favour of those who do not have any other land in their ownership or title. The petitioner has not denied the fact that he possess another plot in Kota. In view of the above, this court is of a firm view that the allotment could not have been made in favour of the petitioner. Subsequent action therefore of cancellation of allotment was legal and in accordance with law. Of course, originally cancellation was done without giving an opportunity of hearing, however, as noticed above, after the High Court allowed the Municipal Council to take action in accordance with law, the Municipal Council, Kota has followed the provisions of law and has given due opportunity to the petitioner and after giving hearing and after passing the detailed order giving reasons, allotment has been cancelled.
8. In view of the above, no illegality can be said to have been committed in rejecting the revision petition of the petitioner by the Collector & Director of Local Bodies. The orders passed by respondents are upheld.
9. However, it is made clear that if the Municipal Council does not use the said land for the purpose of park, the petitioner would be entitled to raise his claim for purchase of the said land on the same terms as has been given to Hazari Lal, however, with the revised rates if any.
10. With the said observations, the writ petition is dismissed. (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 12:11:21 AM)
(6 of 6) [CW-5116/2001]
11. It is made clear that Municipal Council is required to apprise the Additional Adv. General in pending cases henceforth.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Anu / (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 12:11:21 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)