Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Noor Mohammad vs Nagar Nigam, Jaipur And Ors. on 27 April, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1996RAJ68, 1995(3)WLC388, 1995(2)WLN152
ORDER Arun Madan, J.
1. The petitioner, who is admittedly a trespasser over the public land in question, has filed this revision petition in this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order dated 21st July, 1994 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur on the ground that the allotment of the land, measuring 43.33 sq. yards situated in Sanganer Residential Scheme, District Jaipur, vide resolution dated 9th March, 1992 passed by the Municipal Board, Sanganer, was done by the respondent No. 1 viz., Nagar Nigam, Jaipur through its Administrator in his favour.
2. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 5,383.85 paisa on 9th March, 1992 itself with the respondents towards the cost of the land. On 24th March, 1992 Patta was issued in favour of the petitioner which was followed by the registration of the sale deed in his favour on 26th March, 1992. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for permission of the Municipal Board to raise construction over the land in question and the permission was granted by the Municipal Board. Subsequently on 24th August, 1992, notice was issued by the Municipal Board, on the basis of a resolution passed by the Municipal Board, cancelling the earlier allotment done in favour of the petitioner. The cancellation of the allotment was done for the reason that, the Municipal Board, Sanganer was merged with the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur by a notification of the State Government.
3. It has been contended by Shri Pankaj Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-Municipal Corporation was not justified in cancelling the allotment which had been validly done in favour of the petitioner and the sale deed was duly registered in favour of the petitioner prior to the resolution dated 24-8-1992. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no powers vest with the Municipal Corporation to cancel the registration of sale deed, which power vests only with the Court.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents have controverted the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the sale of the land in question which was done in favour of the petitioner by the Municipal Board, Sanganer was itself illegal since the land in question forms part of the public thoroughfare and the Municipal Board could not be a party to such illegal transaction by granting permission to the petitioner to raise any construction over the public thoroughfare and it seems that some unscrupulous officials of the respondent-Nagar Nigam have connived with the petitioner in being a party to the sale deed which, prima facie, was illegal.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record and examined their rival claims and contentions and I am of the considered opinion that no authority much less the public authority like Municipal Board or the Nagar Nigam, Jaipur can be a party to illegal transaction of permitting a party to get the land illegally sanctioned which forms the part of the public thoroughfare and then permitting the concerned party to raise the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan. I have been informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had applied for sanction of the plan before raising construction over the disputed land and the permission was not granted and it was cancelled by the aforesaid resolution dated 24-8-92 passed by the Municipal Board, as referred to above. The effect of the subsequent resolution dated 24-8-92 is itself indicative of the fact that the earlier resolution dated 9th March, 1992 stood automatically rescinded and cancelled and no advantage could be taken of the same by the petitioner.
6. A perusal of the record reveals that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which was filed by the plaintiff in the Court of Munsiff Magistrate, Jaipur vide Suit No. 465/93 is still pending adjudication before the said Court and the learned Trial Court directed the respondents not to interfere in the construction over the land in question till the disposal of the suit and it is against the order passed by the Munsiff Magistrate, Jaipur dated 16th May, 1994, that the Municipal Board-respondent No. 2 had preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Jaipur and it is against the order of the learned District Judge dated 21st July, 1994 reversing the orders of the Trial Court that the present revision petition has been filed before this Court. A perusal of the order dated 21st July, 1994 reveals that specific finding has been recorded by the learned District Judge to the effect that the land in question forms part of public thoroughfare and the allotment of the aforesaid land has already been cancelled in terms of the resolution dated 24-8-92.
7. I am further of the opinion that some employees of the respondent-Board were in league with the petitioner in getting the sale deed registered which is a public place arid which forms part of public thoroughfare since otherwise there was no question of granting any permission by the Municipal Board earlier for allotment of the land to the petitioner which was subsequently cancelled. I am further of the opinion that the sale deed dated 26-3-92 is itself an illegal document which cannot be given any effect to and no permission should be granted to the petitioner for raising any construction over the land in question. If any such construction is raised by the petitioner in near future he shall be doing the same at his own risk as to costs and consequences and the Municipal Board will be fully empowered to demolish the construction if it is raised by the petitioner and the said action of the Municipal Board shall not be open to question before any Court or authority.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the revision petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. The Registry is further directed so that a copy of this order be sent immediately to the Municipal Council, Jaipur for immediate compliance. The record of the Court below be also sent back immediately.