Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Jaipur Udyog Ltd vs State (Local Self Dep) Ors on 14 August, 2012
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9225/2012 S.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO.7914/2012 (M/s. Jaipur Udyog Ltd., Sawaimadhopur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order : 14.08.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Mr. R.K. Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aditya Mathur, for the petitioner-Company. Mr. B.K. Sharma, for the respondents. BY THE COURT
1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.05.2012, passed by the Director Local Bodies, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner-Company under Section 327 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2009').
2. The facts of the case are that plot Nos. A-1 to A-20 in the Warehouse Colony Residential Scheme (Popularly known as Gulab Bagh) were auctioned by the Municipal Board, Sawai Madhopur on 4th/5th March, 2008. Aggrieved by the aforesaid auction, the petitioner-Company filed a writ petition No.3357/08 before this Court whereupon vide order dated 27.07.2011, the petition was dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. An appeal against the said order dated 27.07.2011 also failed on 14.12.2011.
3. The petitioner-Company thereupon filed a revision petition under Section 327 of the Act 2009. The case of the petitioner-Company was that the parcel of land covering the auctioned plot Nos.A-1 to A-20 was handed over to it by the Municipal Board, Sawai Madhopur for development of a Rosary in the year 1967. It was stated that no formal lease-deed was executed for the purpose, but yet the petitioner-company was put into possession whereupon it expanded considerable amounts for the development of Rosary. It was stated before the revising authority that the petitioner-company was entitled to protect its possession allegedly given lawfully by the Municipal Board, Sawai Madhopur in the year 1967 and to ensure the user of the Rosary developed by it for the benefit of the general public. It was stated that in view of the petitioner-company's possession, plots Nos.A-1 to A-20 in the Warehouse Colony Residential Scheme could not be auctioned.
4. The case of the petitioner-Company was considered by the revising authority and on the admitted case of the petitioner-Company that it was not the titleholder of the parcel of land in issue, the revising authority found that no interference in the revision could be made. It was also found that the land in issue was in the ownership of the Municipal Board, Sawai Madhopur and no formal and legal documentation obtained on record to confer any right on the petitioner-Company including any right to the protection of the petitioner-Company's alleged possession. The revising authority also noted that an order had been passed by the Administrator of the Municipal Board on 02.01.1981 whereunder the land was recorded as being in the possession of Municipal Board. Further the matter of the Board's possession was confirmed by the Municipal Board in its resolution dated 18.02.1990. It was held that the sale / auction of plots in the residential scheme carved out over the parcel of land in issue would generate revenues for the Municipal Board which revenues were essential for the discharge of the Board's obligation to the public under the provisions of the Act of 2009.
5. Mr. R.K. Mathur, Sr. Advocate appearing with Mr. Aditya Mathur for the petitioner-Company submits that even though there was no formal lease-deed by which the petitioner-Company was ever put into possession of the land in issue and the petitioner-Company had no valid title of the land in issue, the petitioner-Company had informally been put into possession for development of a Rosary and until the Company was lawfully dispossessed by resort to due process of law, the auction of plot No.A-1 to A-20 in the Warehouse Colony Residential Scheme covering the land in issue was invalid and liable to be quashed and set aside. It was submitted that the petitioner-Company may not have any personal interest to develop and maintain the rosary over the land in issue but that it certainly had the right to agitate a matter of public interest in maintaining the Rosary. Consequently, this Court, counsel argued, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should come to the aid of the petitioner-Company, protect its purported possession, save the Rosary and quash the auction of plot Nos.A-1 to A-20 in the Warehouse Colony Residential Scheme.
6. Mr. B.K. Sharma appearing for the respondents has reiterated the Municipal Board's consistent case that the petitioner-Company has no title, right, interest, or even possession over the parcel of land in issue. He further submits that the petitioner-Company has no legal or fundamental right to agitate by way of the present writ petition before this Court, and where it seeks to agitate a purported public interest as argued on its behalf, it should have appropriately filed a PIL for whatever its worth. Counsel further submits that even otherwise the writ petition is not maintainable as there is no authorisation on record by the petitioner-Company to Mr. B.S. Chauhan through whom the present writ petition has been filed and who has filed an affidavit in support of the writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner-Company is incorporated under the Companies Act and without a proper resolution by the Board of Directors and Execution of power of attorney in terms of the said resolution the writ petition at the instance of Mr. B.S. Chauhan is not maintainable.
7. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner-Company as also the respondents and perused the writ petition.
8. In my considered view, the petitioner-Company has no case. Admittedly the petitioner-Company does not have any title or legally recognized possession of the land in issue. There is a specific finding of the revising authority that at least effective 02.01.1981 the possession of land in issue has been with the Municipal Board. Subsequently, the resolution dated 02.01.1981 was confirmed by the Municipal Board on 18.02.1990. The order of 18.02.1990 has at no point of time been challenged by the petitioner-Company. Apart from the aforesaid, it is quite apparent that the petitioner-Company is not agitating any proprietary or personal right in the present writ petition, but only seeks to agitate its purported right to maintain the Rosary in public interest. On this count and the say of the petitioner-Company itself, this writ petition de hors a legal or fundamental right or alleged contraventions of a statutory provision to the petitioner's detriment is not maintainable. Further, there is no writing on record by which the petitioner-Company was put into possession, nor the terms and conditions of the alleged writing authorising the petitioner-Company to maintain the Rosary on the land in issue are on record. The case of the petitioner is thus absolutely without substance in law.
9. Consequently, I find no force in the writ petition. The same is dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.
(ALOK SHARMA), J MS/-
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Manoj Solanki, Jr. P.A