Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Aneesh Bhati vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 September, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:37874]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15629/2025
Fateh Mohammad S/o Noor Mohammed, Aged About 74 Years,
R/o Ward No.34, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Local Self, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Municipal Board, Nohar, District Hanumangarh Through
Its Executive Officer, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
3. Smt. Khatun W/o Manjoor Ali Tak, Elected Member Of
Ward No. 18, Municipal Board Nohar, District
Hanumangarh And Presently Working As Under Charge Of
The Chairman, Municipal Board Nohar, District
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13991/2025
1. Aneesh Bhati S/o Amzad Khan, Grandson Fateh
Mohammad, Aged About 11 Years, R/o Ward No. 34,
Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.) Through
Its Natural Guardian Father Amzad Khan S/o Fateh
Mohammad Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ward No. 34,
Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
2. Prince Bhati S/o Akbar Ali, Grandson Fateh Mohammad,
Aged About 15 Years, R/o Ward No. 34, Nohar, Tehsil
Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.) Through Its Natural
Guardian Father Akbar Ali S/o Fateh Mohammad Aged
About 45 Years, R/o Ward No. 34, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar,
District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Local Self, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Municipal Board, Nohar, District Hanumangarh Through
Its Executive Officer, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District
(Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 10:03:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37874] (2 of 22) [CW-15629/2025]
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
3. Smt. Khatun W/o Manjoor Ali Tak, Elected Member Of
Ward No. 18, Municipal Board Nohar, District
Hanumangarh And Presently Working As Under Charge Of
The Chairman, Municipal Board Nohar, District
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
4. Ankit Kumar S/o Rajkumar Agarwal, R/o Ward No. 21,
Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14788/2025
1. Aneesh Bhati S/o Amzad Khan, Grandson Fateh
Mohammad, Aged About 11 Years, R/o Ward No. 34,
Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.) Through
Its Natural Guardian Father Amzad Khan S/o Fateh
Mohammad Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ward No. 34,
Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
2. Prince Bhati S/o Akbar Ali, Grandson Fateh Mohammad,
Aged About 15 Years, R/o Ward No. 34, Nohar, Tehsil
Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.) Through Its Natural
Guardian Father Akbar Ali S/o Fateh Mohammad Aged
About 45 Years, R/o Ward No. 34, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar,
District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Local Self, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Municipal Board, Nohar, District Hanumangarh Through
Its Executive Officer, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
3. Smt. Khatun W/o Manjoor Ali Tak, Elected Member Of
Ward No. 18, Municipal Board Nohar, District
Hanumangarh And Presently Working As Under Charge Of
The Chairman, Municipal Board Nohar, District
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
4. Ankit Kumar S/o Rajkumar Agarwal, R/o Ward No. 21,
Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 10:03:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37874] (3 of 22) [CW-15629/2025]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10417/2025
1. Aneesh Bhati S/o Amzad Khan Grandson Fateh
Mohammad, Aged About 11 Years, R/o Ward No. 34,
Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
Through Its Natural Guardian Father Amzad Khan S/o
Fateh Mohammad Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ward No.
34, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
2. Prince Bhati S/o Akbar Ali, Grandson Fateh Mohammad,
Aged About 15 Years, R/o Ward No. 34, Nohar, Tehsil
Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.) Through Its Natural
Guardian Father Akbar Ali S/o Fateh Mohammad Aged
About 45 Years, R/o Ward No. 34, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar,
District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
3. Fateh Mohammad S/o Noor Mohammad, Aged About 76
Years, R/o Ward No. 34, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Local Self, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Municipal Board, Nohar, District Hanumangarh Through
Its Executive Officer, Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
3. Smt. Khatun W/o Manjoor Ali Tak, Elected Member Of
Ward No. 18, Municipal Board Nohar, District
Hanumangarh And Presently Working As Under Charge
Of The Chairman, Municipal Board, Nohar, District
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
4. Ankit Kumar S/o Rajkumar Agarwal, R/o Ward No. 21,
Nohar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Moti Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG
Mr. Monal Chugh.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
(Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 10:03:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37874] (4 of 22) [CW-15629/2025] Order 08/09/2025 By way of filing these instant writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-
In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15629/2025-
"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed:-
a) By an appropriate writ, order and direction be issued and the orders dated 18.07.2025 & 21.07.2025 (Annexure-28) & 30.07.2025 (Annexure-29) passed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Nohar may kindly be quashed and set aside.
b) By an appropriate writ, order and direction be issued and the Respondent Municipal Board Nohar may restrain to demolish or seizure of the house in question of the petitioners, which is constructed under a valid permission and approved plan.
c) By an appropriate writ, order and direction be issued and the Municipality and the respondent may kindly be restrain to ejectment or removal of the construction of the Petitioner upon the land prescribed in lease deed of the Petitioner.
d) By an appropriate writ, order and direction be issued and the lease dated 04.04.1994 (Annexure-10) may restore in its original number and position.
e) That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, by which the Petitioner may get full justice and may also be allowed.
f) Costs of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favor of the Petitioner."
In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14788/2025-
"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed:-
a) By an appropriate writ, order and direction be issued and the order dated 21.07.2025 (Annexure-18) and 30.07.2025 (Annexure-19) issued by the Municipal Board, Nohar may kindly be quashed and set aside.
b) By an appropriate writ, order and direction be issued and the Respondent Municipal Board Nohar may restrain to demolish or seizure of the house in question of the petitioners, which is constructed under a valid permission and approved plan.
c) By an appropriate writ, order and direction be issued and the Municipality and the respondent may kindly be restrain to ejectment or removal of the construction of the (Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 10:03:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:37874] (5 of 22) [CW-15629/2025] Petitioners upon the land prescribed in lease deed of the Petitioners.
d) By an appropriate writ, order and direction be issued and the lease dated 04.04.1994 (Annexure-2) may restore in its original number and position.
e) That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, by which the Petitioners may get full justice and may also be allowed.
f) Costs of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favor of the Petitioners."
In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13991/2025-
"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed:-
a) By an appropriate writ, order and direction be issued and $21725 the order dated 18.07.2025 & 21.7.25 (Annexure-
18) and notice dated 12.05.2025 (Annexure-17) issued by the Municipal Board, Nohar may kindly be quashed and set aside.
b) By an appropriate writ, order and direction be issued and the Respondent Municipal Board Nohar may restrain to demolish or seizure of the house in question of the petitioners, which is constructed under a valid permission and approved plan.
c) By an appropriate writ, order and direction be issued and the Municipality and the respondent may kindly be restrain to ejectment or removal of the construction of the Petitioners upon the land prescribed in lease deed of the Petitioners.
d) By an appropriate writ, order and direction be issued and the lease dated 04.04.1994 (Annexure-2) may restore in its original number and position.
e) That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, by which the Petitioners may get full justice and may also be allowed.
f) Costs of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favor of the Petitioners."
In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10417/2025-
"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed:-
a) By an appropriate writ, order and direction be issued and the order-cum-notice dated 12.05.2025 (Annexure-17) and subsequent notice dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure-18) issued by the Municipal Board, Nohar may kindly be quashed and set aside.
b) By an appropriate writ, order and direction be issued and the Respondent Municipal Board Nohar may restrain to demolish or seizure of the house in question of the (Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 10:03:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:37874] (6 of 22) [CW-15629/2025] petitioners, which is constructed under a valid permission and approved plan.
c) By an appropriate writ, order and direction be issued and the Municipality and the respondent may kindly be restrain to ejectment or removal of the construction of the Petitioners upon the land prescribed in lease deed of the Petitioners.
d) That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, by which the Petitioners may get full justice and may also be allowed. ...."
2. Though the arguments in S.B. CWP. No.10417/2025 were heard separately on 27.08.2025 and the judgment was reserved on that day, but since the instant petitions involved a common controversy therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.
Facts of the case
3. For the purpose of present analogous adjudication, the facts are being taken from the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15629/2025.
4. Brief facts giving rise to the present controversy are that the family of the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad had an ancestral property ad measuring 400 sq. yards in Ward No.34 of the Village Nohar. The uncle of the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad, namely Dhokal Khan, on 27.02.1965 with the permission of the Municipality, Nohar constructed a house over the aforesaid piece of land. Upon an application being made by Dhokal Khan (uncle of the petitioner), the aforesaid piece of land was demarcated by the Municipal Authorities in the year 1983. As per the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad, in the year 1992 a written family settlement took place between the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad and the legal heirs of Dhokal Khan and the land in question was given to the petitioner. Thereafter, in the year 1993, the petitioner- Fateh (Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 10:03:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:37874] (7 of 22) [CW-15629/2025] Mohammad submitted an application before the Municipality, Nohar for issuance of perpetual lease of the land in question in his favour on the basis of long and old possession. The Municipal Board, Nohar thereupon, on 04.04.1994 issued a perpetual lease and patta in favour of the petitioner under the Rajasthan Municipality (Urban Land Disposal) Rules, 1974 for an area of 99 square yard area.
5. As per the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad, an application dated 08.08.2022 was submitted by him to the Municipal Board, Nohar, seeking permission for raising a new construction on the aforementioned land. The Municipal Board, Nohar vide order dated 19.09.2022 approved and granted the construction permission in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, the construction work over the land in dispute was started.
6. Subsequently, the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad, divided his property into two parts and gifted the same to his grandsons namely, Prince Bhati and Aneesh Bhati and the same came to be registered as gift deeds on 07.11.2022 before the office of Sub- Registrar, Nohar. The Municipal Board, Nohar on 13.06.2023 issued a certificate indicating therein that no House Tax/Urban Tax is due in relation to the property in question and thereafter, the grandsons of the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad rented out some part of the property to the Hanumangarh Central Cooperative Bank and some part of the property is being used by them for their residential purposes.
7. The grievance of the petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions is that despite a perpetual lease and patta deed dated (Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 10:03:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:37874] (8 of 22) [CW-15629/2025] 04.04.1994 being issued in favour of the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad, especially after following the procedure under the Rajasthan Municipality (Urban Land Disposal) Rules of 1974, he has been served with a show cause notice dated 12.05.2025 alleging inter alia that certain private person have raised objections regarding the land in question and, therefore, he should appear before the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Nohar with all relevant documents of the land in question.
8. The show cause notice dated 12.05.2025 was returned by the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad with a remark that the property in question does not belong to him ( ये भवन फतेह मोहम्मद के नाम नही ं है रिकॉर्ड दे खकर नोटिस फिर दिया जाना चाहिए भविष्य में ध्यान रखें ).
9. The Executive Officer Nagar Palika, Nohar, thereafter served petitioner- Fateh Mohammad with a show cause notice dated 10.06.2025 on the ground that the lease deed dated 04.04.1994 was issued in his favour for an area ad measuring approximately 99 square yard upon his submitting a false affidavit that he did not own any other residential plot within the Municipal Limits, whereas, he was already possessing plot No.A-47 in Nehru Nagar Residential Colony and thereby he was asked to submit his reply within three days, failing which proceedings as per the Municipality Laws will be initiated against him.
10. The petitioner- Fateh Mohammad on 13.06.2025 submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice denying the allegations levelled against him and further stated that no false affidavit as alleged in the show cause notice dated 10.06.2025, was ever submitted by him.
(Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 10:03:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:37874] (9 of 22) [CW-15629/2025]
11. The Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Nohar being dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, again served the petitioners- Fateh Mohammad, Prince Bhati and Aneesh Bhati with a show cause notice on 08.07.2025 under Section 73-B of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short 'the Act of 2009') stating inter alia that the lease deed and patta of the property in question, issued in favour of the petitioner, is not in accordance with the provisions of applicable rules and, therefore, why the same should not be cancelled.
12. A detailed reply to the show cause notice dated 08.07.2025 was submitted by the petitioners reiterating that no illegality whatsoever has been committed in issuing the lease deed and patta of the property in question, in favour of the petitioners.
13. The Executive Officer, Nohar after receiving reply from the petitioners, constituted a Five Member Committee to examine the validity of the patta issued to the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad. The Five Member Committee after examining the relevant records and reply submitted by the petitioners to various show cause notices concluded that the lease deed and patta have been issued to the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad in contravention of law as the same is based on false documents and misrepresentation of facts made by the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad.
14. The Executive Officer, Nohar acting upon the Five Members Committee's findings vide order dated 18.07.2025 cancelled the perpetual lease and patta dated 04.04.1994 issued in favour of the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad while exercising the powers conferred upon him under Section 73-B of the Act of 2009. (Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 10:03:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:37874] (10 of 22) [CW-15629/2025] Arguments on behalf of the petitioners:
15. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent- Municipality, issued perpetual lease deed and patta dated 04.04.1994 in favour of the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad in respect of the land in question only after following the due procedure provided under the Municipality Act and Rules so also after following the provisions of Rajasthan Municipality (Urban Land Disposal) Rule, 1974 and Lease Government Grants Act, 1985 (hereinafter 'Grants Act'). He submitted that once a perpetual lease deed and patta has been issued in favour of the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad, there is no reason or justification available with the respondents to review the same by (notice/cancellation) and that too after about 30 years of the said grant.
16. Learned counsel submitted that a bare perusal of the perpetual lease deed and patta dated 04.04.1994 clearly indicate that the old and long possession of the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad over Nazul (Abadi) land was regularized by the respondents and the lease was issued in his favour in conformity with the Grants Act. Learned counsel submitted that before the issuance of the said patta, the respondents obtained various documents from the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad to determine the period of possession over the land and the authenticity/genuineness of his claim. Learned counsel submitted that as per the order No.OE/F-19 (Campaign) DLB/83/5783 dated 15.09.1983, in case of any dispute with regard to land qua which patta has been issued as per the Grants Act, the decision of the (Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 10:03:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:37874] (11 of 22) [CW-15629/2025] Collector in that regard shall be final. He submitted that in the present case, no proceedings for cancellation of perpetual lease and patta could have been initiated by the Executive Officer Municipal Board, Nohar, by taking aid of Section 73- B of the Act of 2009 and, if at all, there was any dispute with regard to perpetual lease and patta issued to the petitioner, then the matter should have been brought to the notice of the competent authority- District Collector.
17. Learned counsel submitted that various documents attached with the case file clearly indicate that the construction over the land in question was raised by the petitioners only after taking due permissions, obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and clearance certificate of no dues of Municipal Taxes from the Municipal Board, Nohar. He submitted that no illegality whatsoever has been committed by the petitioners in the present case and, therefore, the perpetual lease and patta issued to the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad in the year 1994 cannot be reviewed (notice/cancellation) by the very same authorities of Municipal Board. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise, once the patta was issued in favour of the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad, the same could not have been cancelled by the Executive Officer, Nohar without establishing the illegalities committed in issuing the same before the competent Civil Court having jurisdiction to decide the same.
18. Learned counsel submitted that although the lease was granted to the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad for only 99 square yard in the year 1994, the map submitted seeking permission for (Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 10:03:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:37874] (12 of 22) [CW-15629/2025] construction of residential-cum-commercial complex included the adjacent parental/ancestral land which came in possession of the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad through family settlement (Memorandum of Understanding) and, thereby permission was sought for total 197.5 square yards. The authorities of the Municipal Board only after due consideration of the same and after considering all the aspects and material on record, granted permission for construction of ground floor for commercial use and first floor for residential purposes in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2009. It was further submitted that in the cases of any deviation in the construction from the approved map, the respondent authorities have ample powers to regularize the same by taking recourse of the Unified Building Bylaw- 2017. However, in the present case, the respondents are adamant to demolish the same without undertaking any efforts or proceedings to regularize the construction already raised by the petitioner over the land in question.
19. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as a matter of fact, entire proceedings for cancellation of perpetual lease deed and patta dated 04.04.1994 and seizure of the building constructed by the petitioner over the land in question have been initiated by the Municipal Board only with a view to avenge the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad as the petitioner has made numerous complaints against the present Chairman of the Municipal Board, Nohar highlighting various illegalities and irregularities committed by her in discharging administrative duties and awarding arbitrary tenders for the work connected with (Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 10:03:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:37874] (13 of 22) [CW-15629/2025] the affairs of the Municipality, Nohar. He submitted that after receiving complaints from the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad, the State Government has also initiated inquiry against the Chairman Municipal Board, Nohar and sought for explanations from her as well as the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Nohar. On these grounds, learned counsel implored the Court to quash and set aside the impugned notices/orders against the petitioners by the Executive Officer, Nohar District Hanumangarh. Arguments on behalf of the respondents:
20. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the present case, the respondent No.2 upon receiving complaint regarding irregularities in the perpetual lease and patta issued in favour of the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad and upon examining the relevant documents, found serious irregularities in issuance of perpetual lease deed and patta dated 04.04.1994. Whereafter, the proceedings relating to issuance of show cause notice and cancellation of the perpetual lease deed and patta were initiated by Municipal Board, Nohar. Learned counsel submitted that since the entire proceedings in the present case having been conducted in conformity with the Section 73- B of the Act of 2009, the petitioner has an alternate, efficacious and speedy remedy under the Act of 2009 of filing revision petition before the Director Local Self Government Rajasthan, Jaipur. It was thus prayed that the present writ petition may be dismissed without entering into the merits of the case solely on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy.
(Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 10:03:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:37874] (14 of 22) [CW-15629/2025]
21. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case, perpetual lease deed and patta dated 04.04.1994 for an area ad measuring approximately 99 square yards was procured by the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad through misrepresentation of material facts. He submitted that petitioner- Fateh Mohammad submitted a false affidavit before the Municipal Board, Nohar indicating therein that apart from the piece of land qua which the regularization is sought, he does not own any other residential plot within the Municipal Limits, whereas it was later found that a plot No.A-47 in Nehru Nagar Residential Colony was already allotted to the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad by the Municipality in the year 1976-77.
22. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise, the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad was holding a lease deed and patta for an area ad measuring only about 99 square yards, however, he still applied for construction permission of commercial-cum- residential building over an area of 197 square yards, thereby grossly overstating the area. Learned counsel submitted that while doing so, he placed reliance upon family settlement or a purported 'Memorandum of Understanding' between him and his brothers namely Jayan Mohammad and Gulam Mohammad, which has no legal sanctity in the eyes of law as the same is not a legally valid or enforceable document under the provisions of the Act of 2009. He submitted that the petitioners obtained the perpetual lease deed and patta in question so also construction permission dated 19.09.2022 by misrepresentation of facts and on the basis of false documents and, therefore, the issuing authority i.e. Executive (Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 10:03:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:37874] (15 of 22) [CW-15629/2025] Officer Municipal Board, Nohar has rightly revoked/cancelled the same by exercising the powers under sub-Section (3) of Section 73-B of the Act of 2009.
23. Learned counsel submitted that after issuing notices to the petitioner and before taking a final decision for cancellation of perpetual lease deed and patta dated 04.04.1994, the matter was examined by a Five Member Committee. The Committee after examining the matter and after considering the records and reply of the petitioner had recommended for cancellation of the same.
24. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that a no due certificate with regard to taxes by the Municipal Board while granting construction permission does not, in any manner, confer ownership right or validate the lease or construction permission issued in favour of the petitioners, particularly when it is established on record that patta and construction permission has been obtained through misrepresentation. It was also submitted that though the permission was granted to the petitioners for construction of ground floor and first floor but the petitioners have constructed a three-story building over the disputed piece of land in deviation to the conditions of permission granted and thus, the illegal construction deserves to be demolished by the Municipal Authorities. On these grounds, learned counsel implored the Court to dismiss the present writ petitions with exemplary costs.
25. Section 73-B is reproduced as hereunder:-
"73-B. Revocation of allotment and cancellation of lease deed.-(1) Notwithstanding any thing to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, if, at any time, before or after the lease deed, executed and registered, in respect of land disposed of under this Chapter either on lease (Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 10:03:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:37874] (16 of 22) [CW-15629/2025] hold basis or on free hold basis, the Municipality has reasons to believe that allotment of land has been obtained, and lease deed has been executed, by way of misrepresentation of facts or on the basis of false documents or with collusion or in contravention of law, it shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing to show cause why an order of revocation of allotment and cancellation of the lease deed of the land should not be made.
(2) The notice shall -
(a) specify the grounds on which an order of revocation of allotment and cancellation of the lease deed of the land is proposed to be made; and
(b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are or may be, in occupation of or claim interest in, the land, to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice being a date not earlier than seven days from the date of issue thereof. (3) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person in pursuance of a notice under sub-section (1) and any evidence he may produce in support of the same and after giving him, a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the Municipality is satisfied that the lease is obtained by misrepresentation of facts or on the basis of false documents or with collusion or in contravention of law, the Municipality may, make an order of revocation of allotment and cancellation of the lease deed of the land and also make an order of eviction, for reasons to be recorded therein, directing that the land shall be vacated by all persons who are or may be in occupation thereof or any part thereof, and cause a copy of the order to be affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the land.
(4) An appeal shall lie from an order of the Municipality made under sub-section (3) to the State Government or the officer authorized by it.
(5) An appeal under sub-section (4) shall be preferred within fifteen days from the date on which the order is communicated to the appellant:
Provided that the State Government or the officer authorized by it may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of fifteen days, if it or he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
(6) Every appeal under sub-section (4) shall be disposed of by the State Government or the officer authorized by it as expeditiously as possible.
(7) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any order, notice, proceedings or action taken under this section."(Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 10:03:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37874] (17 of 22) [CW-15629/2025]
26. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of "Bannaram & Ors v. Municipal Board, Nokha & Anr.": S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10570/2023, decided on 12.09.2023 after examining the intent of legislature behind inserting Section 73-B of the Act of 2009 by way of an amendment in the year 2021 pleased to observe as under:-
"...it is clear that the Legislature's intention behind insertion of the Section 73-B of the Act of 2009 was that it is necessary to prevent the illegal allotment of the land and execution of lease deed, and thus, powers were given to the concerned Municipal Body to issue show cause notice to the person(s) concerned, and thereafter, if the Municipal Body is satisfied that the allotment of the land and issuance of patta and registration thereof was done, by misrepresentation of facts or on the basis of false documents or with collusion or in contravention of law, it can pass an order for revocation of allotment and cancellation of the lease deed of the land."
Analysis of arguments and conclusion:
27. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the record of the case.
28. It is not in dispute that the impugned order for cancelling of the perpetual lease deed and patta has been taken by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Nohar in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 73-B of the Act of 2009, upon reaching a conclusion that the perpetual lease deed and patta so also construction permission was obtained by the petitioner by way of misrepresentation of facts which is not in accordance with law. The brief allegations against the petitioners are that:-
(i) That the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad, concealed the fact of already possessing a plot No.A- 47 in Nehru Nagar Residential Colony and on the basis of the said belief and (Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 10:03:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:37874] (18 of 22) [CW-15629/2025] also on the basis of old and long possession of the land in question, the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad obtained a perpetual lease deed and patta dated 04.04.1994 for an area ad measuring approximately 99 square yard, situated on Bihani Road near Beniwal Eye Hospital, in his favour.
(ii) A perpetual lease deed and patta dated 04.04.1994 was issued to the petitioner for a plot ad measuring approximately 99 square yards. However, while seeking construction permission for a commercial-cum-residential building in the year 2022, the petitioner misrepresented the size of the plot as approximately 197 square yards, which is far in excess of the area for which he holds the patta.
29. As far as allegation No.(i) is concerned, this Court from perusal of the records of the case finds that the family of the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad was in possession of the disputed piece of land since the year 1965. Upon a request being made by one Dhokal Khan (uncle of the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad) in the year 1983, the disputed piece of land was demarcated by the Municipality. It is also established on record that in the year 1992, on the basis of a family settlement, the land in question came in possession of the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad.
30. This Court finds that the old, long and peaceful possession of the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad over the disputed piece of land has not even been questioned by the respondents. However, after thirty years of issuance of perpetual lease deed and patta dated 04.04.1994 in favour of the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad under (Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 10:03:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:37874] (19 of 22) [CW-15629/2025] the relevant rules on the basis of old and long possession, the respondents have cancelled the same on the ground that the petitioner, at the time of seeking regularization of the disputed piece of land concealed the factum with regard to him possessing a plot No.A-47 in Nehru Nagar Residential Colony.
31. In the opinion of this Court, the perpetual lease deed and patta issued in favour of the petitioner about thirty years back ought not to have been cancelled by the respondent No.2- Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Nohar by taking recourse of Section 73- B of the Act of 2009 only on the ground that the petitioner submitted a false affidavit to get the perpetual lease deed and patta issued in his favour. True it is, that no limitation is prescribed for exercise of the powers under Section 73- B of the Act of 2009 but then the same needs to be exercised within a reasonable time keeping in view the laws of equity and justice. Once an order granting a benefit is allowed to continue for a long length of time, then the person affected is entitled to assume and act in accordance with the fact that the matter has attained finality or no lis/dispute in that regard is pending unless it comes to the notice that the particular benefit was extended on account of fraud played by the party.
32. As noticed above, there is no dispute with regard to the fact of petitioner- Fateh Mohammad's family having possession over the disputed piece of land from last more than sixty years. In the reply submitted by the respondents they have not disputed the factum of aforesaid piece of land coming into possession of the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad on the basis of family settlement (Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 10:03:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:37874] (20 of 22) [CW-15629/2025] between him and the legal heirs of Late Dhokal Khan (uncle of the petitioner). In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner had played any fraud upon the Municipal Board, Nohar at the time of submitting an application seeking regularization of the disputed piece of land in his favour on the ground of old, long and peaceful possession.
33. This Court finds that since the uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the petitioner's family over the disputed piece of land remains uncontroverted, the mere non-disclosure of fact of having possession of another plot cannot be the sole reason for cancellation of the perpetual lease deed and patta issued in his favour after thirty years.
34. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the perpetual lease deed and patta dated 04.04.1994 for plot ad measuring 99 square yard was rightly issued in favour of the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad on the basis of family's old possession and, therefore, the same should not have been cancelled by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Nohar in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 73-B of the Act of 2009.
35. As far as the allegation No.(ii) is concerned, this Court finds that as per the petitioners, they came in possession of the land beyond 99 square yards on the basis of a settlement between petitioner- Fateh Mohammad and his brothers namely Jayan Mohammad and Gulam Mohammad. However, no lease deed/patta/ or any other legally enforceable documents conferring title or allotment of land beyond 99 square yards in favour of the (Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 10:03:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:37874] (21 of 22) [CW-15629/2025] petitioners or his above named brothers have been placed on record. A family settlement or Memorandum of Understanding between the family members can not be treated as a legally valid or enforceable title document under the relevant rules. Thus, the construction permission sought by the petitioner for approximately 197 square yards being just almost double the area for which the petitioners possess perpetual lease and patta cannot be held valid by this Court.
36. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the actions concerning the issuance of show cause notices and seizure of the building for the area not covered by the perpetual lease deed and patta dated 04.04.1994. This is for the simple reason that if a construction permission has been obtained without possessing legally valid documents of ownership over property, then the competent authority shall be entitled to annul/revoke the permission by exercising powers under the Municipal Laws in accordance with the due process of law. The registration of gift deed by the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad in favour of his grandsons, will not by itself be treated as a bar in adjudicating upon the validity of the construction if the construction permission or the allotment of land itself has been found to be illegal.
37. In the result, the present batch of writ petitions are partly allowed. The order dated 18.07.2025 issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Nohar cancelling the perpetual lease deed and patta dated 04.04.1994 issued in favour of the petitioner- Fateh Mohammad for the land ad measuring 99 square yards is (Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 10:03:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:37874] (22 of 22) [CW-15629/2025] hereby quashed and set aside. However, the construction beyond 99 square yards raised by the petitioners over the disputed piece of land is hereby declared illegal and no relief for regularization of the same can be granted by this Court.
38. It is however, made clear that the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach competent authority for allotment and regularization of the land in question in accordance with law, if so advised.
39. A copy of this order be placed in each file.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 473-475 (20.08.2025) & 395 (27.08.2025)-himanshu/-
(Downloaded on 08/09/2025 at 10:03:58 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)