Bal Deo Wadhwa vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 7629 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:30787] (1 of 18) [CW-2570/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2570/2023

S.n. Agarwal S/o Sh. J.n. Agarwal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Chetak Market, Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh, Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Vipin Agarwal S/o S.n. Agarwal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Chetak Market, Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Local Self Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. District Collector, Chittorgarh.

3. Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh.

4. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh.

5. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7598/2021 Mohan Singh S/o Narendra Singh, Aged About 58 Years, Ward No.01, Opposite Petrol Pump, Kota Road, Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary , Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

3. The Municipal Board Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh Through The Executive Officer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10123/2021 Sanjay Wadhwa S/o Baldev Wadhwa, Aged About 45 Years, Ward No. 04, Near Hanuman Temple, Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

3. The Municipal Board, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh Through The Executive Officer.

----Respondents

[2023:RJ-JD:30787] (2 of 18) [CW-2570/2023]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14191/2021 Shyam Sundar Soni S/o Rajmal Soni, Aged About 72 Years, 5-A, New Market, Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

2. The District Collector, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

3. The Tehsildar Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh Rajasthan.

4. The Municipal Board Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh Through The Executive Officer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2157/2022 Bal Deo Wadhwa S/o Shri Kala Ramwadhwa, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Ward No. 03, Near Anokheraj Hanuman Temple, Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

3. The Municipal Board, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh Through The Executive Officer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2793/2022 Bal Deo Wadhwa S/o Kala Ram Wadhwa, Aged About 74 Years, Ward No.03, Near Anokheraj Hanuman Temple, Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

3. The Municipal Board, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh Through The Executive Officer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3255/2022 Dinesh Kumar Gupta S/o Radheshyam Gupta, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Plot No. 9, New Market, Rawatbhata, Distt. Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

[2023:RJ-JD:30787] (3 of 18) [CW-2570/2023]

2. Sub Divisional Officer, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)

3. The Tehsildar, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

4. The Municipal Board, Rawabhata, District Chittorgarh Through The Executive Officer.

5. The Surpanch, Gram Panchayat Charbhuja, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3266/2022 Rajesh Kumar Jain S/o Vinay Kumar Jain, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Ward No. 03, Ratan Rajesh Medical And General Store, Rawatbhata, Bajar, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

3. The Municipal Board, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh Through The Executive Officer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3291/2022 Nirmala Gupta W/o G.c. Gupta, Aged About 54 Years, R/o D-24, D Road, Heavy Water Colony, Bhabhanagar, Rawatbhata, Distt. Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Sub Divisional Officer, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)

3. The Tehsildar, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)

4. The Municipal Board, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh Through The Executive Officer.

5. The Surpanch, Gram Panchayat Charbhuja, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3317/2022 Gulab Chand Gupta S/o Ram Narayan Gupta, Aged About 61 Years, D-24, D Road, Heavy Water Colony, Bhabhanagar, Rawatbhata, Distt. Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

[2023:RJ-JD:30787] (4 of 18) [CW-2570/2023]

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Sub Divisional Officer, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

3. The Tehsildar, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

4. The Municipal Board, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh Through The Executive Officer.

5. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Charbhuja, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3349/2022 Om Prakash Gupta S/o Ramnarayan Gupta, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Plot No. 9, New Market, Rawatbhata Bazar, Rawatbhata, Distt. Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Sub Divisional Officer, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)

3. The Tehsildar, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)

4. The Municipal Board, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh Through The Executive Officer.

5. The Surpanch, Gram Panchayat Charbhuja, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4341/2022 Bal Deo Wadhwa S/o Shri Kala Ramwadhwa, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Ward No. 03, Near Anokheraj Hanuman Temple, Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

3. The Municipal Board, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh Through The Executive Officer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4353/2022 Ashok Wadhwa S/o Govind Lal Wadhwa, Aged About 55 Years, R/ o Plot No. 1, Sabji Mandi, Ward No. 24, Pani Ki Tanki Ke Samne, New Market, Bhabha Nagar, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

[2023:RJ-JD:30787] (5 of 18) [CW-2570/2023]

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

3. The Municipal Board, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh Through The Executive Officer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4420/2022 Ishwari Devi W/o Govind Wadhwa, Aged About 78 Years, R/o Ward No. 14, Near Hanuman Mandir, Rawatbhata Bazar, Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

3. The Municipal Board, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh Through Its Executive Officer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5163/2022 Shankar Singh S/o Shri Biram Singh, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Village Badoliya, Tehsil Rawatbhata, Distt. Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Chittorgarh.

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Rawatbhata Dist. Chittorgarh.

4. Gram Panchayat Badoliya, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh Through Sarpanch.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5230/2022 Rajesh Kumar Jain S/o Vijay Kumar Jain, Aged About 52 Years, Ward No. 03, Ratan Rajesh Medial And General Store, Rawatbhata Bajar, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

3. The Municipal Board, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh Through The Executive Officer.

[2023:RJ-JD:30787] (6 of 18) [CW-2570/2023]

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5257/2022 Ahmed Ayaz Hussain S/o Azeez Hussain, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Chetak Market, Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

3. The Municipal Board, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh Through The Executive Officer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5472/2022 Deepshikha Wadhwa D/o Ashol Wadhwa, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Plot No. 1, Opposite Water Tank, New Market, Rawatbhata, Distt. Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Municipal Board, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh Through The Executive Officer.

3. The District Collector, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12067/2022 Ramlal Sharma S/o Mathura Lal Sharma, Aged About 72 Years, 40, Maruti Nagar, Jhalar Bawadi, Charbhuja, Rawatbhata Dist. Chittorgarh Rajasthan

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan

3. The Municipal Board Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh Through The Executive Officer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13168/2022 Satya Narayan Derashree S/o Late Sh. Nand Lal, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Brahman, R/o Plot No. 40, Naya Bazar, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Local Self Department, Secretariat, Government Of

[2023:RJ-JD:30787] (7 of 18) [CW-2570/2023]

Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

4. The Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13847/2022 Dugh Kanwar Ranawat W/o Laxman Singh Ranawat, Aged About 62 Years, 1137, Aanchliyo Ka Mohalla, Begu, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

3. The Municipal Board, Begu, District Chittorgarh Through The Executive Officer.

4. The Tehsildar, Begu, District Chittorgarh.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1762/2023 Rahul Kumar Jain S/o Sh. Jambu Kumar Jain, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Jain, R/o House No. 229-B, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh At Present House No. 734, Basant Vihar, Kota (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Local Self Department, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh Rajasthan.

4. The Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.R. Punia Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Ramniwas Choudhary Mr. CS Kotwani Mr. Devki Nandan Vyas Mr. Sharwan Singh Nirban Mr. Sikander Khan

[2023:RJ-JD:30787] (8 of 18) [CW-2570/2023]

For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Jitendra Mohan Choudhary Mr. Rajesh Parihar, AGC Mr. R.D. Bhadu, Dy. GC Mr. K.P. Raj Singh Deora

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 20/09/2023 Pronounced on 22/09/2023

1. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy,

though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore,

for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts

and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2570/2023, while treating the same as a

lead case.

2. The prayer clauses read as under:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that the instant writ petition may kindly be ordered to be allowed and a writ, order or direction in the appropriate nature may kindly be issued in favour of the humble petitioner; and

i) The impugned orders dated 26.02.1993 (Annex.5) may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside.

ii) The patta so granted in favour of humble petitioner may kindly be ordered to be restored back or in the alternative respondent-Municipality Board may kindly be directed to regularize the possession of humble petitioner while taking requisite DLC rate charges over the property in question.

Any other order of direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

[2023:RJ-JD:30787] (9 of 18) [CW-2570/2023]

present case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner."

3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by

learned counsel for the petitioner, are that father of the petitioner

was having possession over certain land in Rawatbhata which was

the holding of the Irrigation Department, and also since the same

was being irrigated through Rana Pratap Sagar Dam, the father of

the petitioner was paying rent for the land in question.

3.1. For the purpose of construction of Rana Pratap Sagar Dam,

certain land was acquired, and out of the said land, almost 100

bighas of land, not utilized for Rana Pratap Sagar Dam Project,

was transferred to Gram Panchayat, Rawatbhata for development

of Abadi, in the year 1983. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat,

Rawatbhata issued a patta in favour of father of the petitioner

bearing Misal No.72 dated 19.03.1983 ad-measuring 40 x 30 feet

of land.

3.2. The State through Panchayat Prasar Adhikari filed a revision

(registered as Case No. 86/1992) under Section 27(A) of the

Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 read with Rule 272 of the

Panchayat General Rules, 1961 before the Court of Additional

District Collector, Chittorgarh, which was allowed vide the

impugned order dated 26.02.1993, while cancelling the patta of

the petitioner in relation to the land in question; since the said

order was not challenged, the same had attained finality.

3.3. Subsequently, the Municipal Board was constituted at

Rawatbhata in the year 1999, and thereupon, the land in question

[2023:RJ-JD:30787] (10 of 18) [CW-2570/2023]

was purchased by the Municipal Board of Rawatbhata from the

Ranapratap Sagar and Bhandar Division, Rawatbhata; since then,

the land was continuously held by the Municipal Board,

Rawatbhata.

3.4. Thereafter, the petitioner has received a show cause notice

on 15.06.2011 from the Municipal Board, wherein it was stated

that the petitioner had illegally encroached upon the land in

question, and thus, was called upon to furnish the relevant

documents regarding the land in question to showcase his

ownership over the land. The petitioner filed a reply to the said

notice on 20.06.2011. The Municipal Board however, through a

General Notice (Aam Suchna) dated 12.03.2021, issued a

direction that no encroachment over the government land(s) shall

be allowed and if any encroachment, over the government land(s),

is found, the same shall be removed within 3 days. The

respondents thereafter, dismantled the constructed house of the

petitioner.

3.5. Thus, being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the

respondents, and the impugned order of cancellation of the

pattas, the present petitions have been preferred for quashing of

the same and the proceedings conducted thereafter, including

removal of the constructions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no proper

notice had been given to the petitioners prior to cancellation of

patta, which was clear from the impugned order, and therefore,

the impugned order of cancellation of patta is not justified in law.

[2023:RJ-JD:30787] (11 of 18) [CW-2570/2023]

4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners were

not aware about the proceedings pertaining to cancellation of the

pattas in question till the reply was filed by the respondents in the

earlier writ petition, and therefore, there was no delay in filing the

present petitions. It was also submitted that the entire impugned

action of the respondents was ex parte and was taken without

giving any proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

4.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the State

Government had issued various circulars and orders, whereby

encroachers, if any, were also held entitled for regularization

owing to their long drawn possession, and thus, the case of the

present petitioners is on a better footing than that of the

encroachers, as they were holding valid pattas in regard to their

possession over the land(s) in question, thereby entitling them for

regularization of their possession. It was also submitted that the

notice dated 12.03.2021 issued by the respondents to the

petitioners was not been served upon them in any manner, and

therefore, the entire action of the respondents is arbitrary and

illegal.

4.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents, on

one hand, had regularized the possession of one Lal Chand

Jaiswal, in relation to a land, just adjacent to the petitioners'

land(s), while on the other, cancelled the patta of the petitioner,

followed by an action for demolition of the constructions of the

petitioner over the land(s) in question. Therefore, as per learned

counsel, the same clearly shows mala fide intention of the

respondents. It was also submitted that the proceedings of

[2023:RJ-JD:30787] (12 of 18) [CW-2570/2023]

cancellation of the pattas and removal of constructions in question

was done in a pick and choose manner, and therefore, such action

was not justified in law.

4.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the patta of the

land(s) in question was issued in favour of the petitioner, in one

case, in the year 1983; the petitioners constructed the shops as

well as residential accommodations over the land in question, and

thus, the impugned action of the respondents is not justified in

law.

4.5. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner, in the

lead case, did not engage any counsel in the aforementioned

revision petition and no one appeared on his behalf, and therefore,

the entire action was taken ex parte against the petitioner.

4.6. Learned counsel further submitted that even now in case the

respondents are inclined to regularize the possession of the

petitioners over the land(s) in question, they are ready to bear the

requisite and the necessary charges therefor. It was also

submitted that the Director, Local Self had issued a letter to the

Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, whereby it was directed

that upto 300 sq. yard land, which is under encroachment should

be regularized.

4.7. Learned counsel further submitted that in identical matters

bearing Pushpa Malik Vs State (S.B.C.W.P. No. 4503/2020) and

Manoj Malik Vs State (S.B.C.W.P. No. 7792/2021), wherein the

respondents herein were also parties, the Hon'ble Court passed

the interim order in the year 2013, and therefore, the impugned

action of the respondents was not justified in law.

[2023:RJ-JD:30787] (13 of 18) [CW-2570/2023]

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made

on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the present petitions,

including, the lead case, are not maintainable because the

impugned order in all these cases was passed in the year 1993

and after almost 20 years, the present petition (lead case ) was

filed and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed on the

ground of delay and laches.

5.1. It was further submitted that the petitioner was represented

through his counsel in the revision petition and thereafter, the

impugned order was passed, therefore, proper opportunity of

hearing was given to the petitioner and there was no violation of

the principles of natural justice on the part of the respondents.

5.2. It was also submitted that on 14.09.2012, a notice was

published in the newspaper at the instance of the office of

Executive Engineer Rana Pratapsagar and Bhandar Division,

Rawatbhata to the effect that all pattas issued by the Gram

Panchayat had been annulled by the Collector and no construction

shall be raised on such lands, or no one shall be allowed to indulge

in purchase or in sale of such land(s).

5.3. It was further submitted that the illegal encroachment(s) of

the petitioners had already been removed and that the land(s)

had already been taken into possession by the respondents, and

thus, no question of regularization, as prayed hereinbefore, in

regard to the illegal possession of the petitioner shall arise. It was

further submitted that the patta issued to the petitioner in the

[2023:RJ-JD:30787] (14 of 18) [CW-2570/2023]

year 1983 had been cancelled by the competent authority in the

year 1993, and the same had already attained finality.

5.4. It was also submitted that in the year 2006, the Municipal

Board, Rawatbhata purchased the land in question from the

Ranapratap Sagar and Bhandar Division, Rawatbhata. It was

further submitted that the land in question claimed by the

petitioner was entered in the revenue records in the name of the

Municipal Board, which is reflected in the Jamabandi of Khasra

no.17.

5.5. It was also submitted that prior to demolishing the illegal

constructions of the petitioners, the respondents issued a public

notice on 12.03.2021 in the newspapers and also a similar kind of

notice was issued and published in the newspapers on

11.06.2021. It was further submitted that the respondents also

issued notice under Sections 194 and 245 of the Rajasthan

Municipalities Act, 2009, which was sent to the petitioner on

12.01.2023. Therefore, the entire action of the respondents was in

accordance with law.

5.6. It was also submitted that the service of notice upon the

petitioner was proper and that such encroachments and illegal

constructions have been removed by the Municipal Authorities to a

large extent, as they are duty bound to do so, as envisaged under

Sections 194 and 245 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009.

5.7. It was further emphasized by Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned

Senior Counsel and Mr. Rajesh Parihar, learned Additional

Government Counsel that all the encroachers are to be treated

equally and all the illegal constructions deserve removal; while,

[2023:RJ-JD:30787] (15 of 18) [CW-2570/2023]

most of the illegal constructions have been removed, the rest are

under process, and therefore, the impugned action of the

respondents shall never be said to be violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India.

5.8. In support of the above submissions, reliance was placed

upon the orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Hon'ble

Court in the cases of Madan Lal Gaur Vs State of Rajasthan &

Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No.716/2023 order dated 17.01.2023) and

Dasrath Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P.

No.848/2023 order dated 18.01.2023)

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case alongwith orders referred at the Bar.

7. This Court observes that the father of the petitioner was

having possession over certain land in Rawatbhata, which was

holding of the Irrigation Department, and that, he was paying rent

for the same. Thereafter, the land in question was transferred over

to the Gram Panchayat whereas they had no authority to transfer

the same, subsequently, the Gram Panchayat, Rawatbhata issued

a patta in favour of the father of petitioner in the year 1983.

However, the aforementioned revision petition was filed before the

Additional Collector (Administrative), Chittorgarh, which was

allowed vide the impugned order dated 26.02.1993, while

cancelling the patta in question. Subsequently, the Municipal

Board was constituted at Rawatbhata in the year 1999, whereupon

the land in question was purchased by the Municipal Board from

the Ranapratap Sagar and Bhandar Division, Rawatbhata, and

since then the land was held by the said Municipal Board.

[2023:RJ-JD:30787] (16 of 18) [CW-2570/2023]

8. This Court further observes that the Municipal Board had

purchased the land in question in the year 2006, and the letter

dated 04.04.2007 stated that as per the decision of the State

Government and Naya Bazzar Yojana Samiti, the land in question

was sold to the Municipal Board for a consideration amount as

mentioned in the said letter.

9. This Court further observes that the respondents published

various notices in the newspaper regarding the encroachment in

question and the respondents also published the general notice

(Aam Suchana) dated 12.03.2021 regarding the illegal

encroachment and also directed for removal/demolition thereof

within 3 days.

10. This Court also observes that the patta issued in favour of

the petitioner was already cancelled vide order dated 26.02.1993

passed by the Additional Collector (Administration), Chittorgarh,

and thereafter, the Municipal Board, purchased the land in

question, and subsequently, after giving several opportunities to

the petitioner, exercised its powers under Sections 194 & 245 of

the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 and has removed illegal

encroachments and constructions. Therefore, the respondents

have not acted in violation, amongst others, of the principles of

natural justice.

11. This Court further observes that the patta in question (in

lead case) was cancelled in the year 1993, and the challenge

against the same has been laid in the year 2023, i.e. after a huge

delay on the part of the petitioner. This Court also observes that

apart from the lead case, the rest of the above-numbered

[2023:RJ-JD:30787] (17 of 18) [CW-2570/2023]

petitions are also suffering from a same kind of inordinate and

unexplained delay in challenging the order of cancellation of the

pattas and demolition of the illegal constructions.

12. This Court also observes that the possession on a

government land without any lawful approval and without issuance

of valid pattas, is an encroachment, which is the case herein, and

therefore, the impugned actions of the respondents do not suffer

from any legal infirmity so as to warrant any interference by this

Court in the present petitions.

13. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into

the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a

fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present

petitions.

14. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed while

directing the Municipal Board, Rawatbhata that it shall not treat

any person unequally and in case any person, similarly situated to

the present petitioners, has been given undue benefit of

regularization of its possession over the government land, then

appropriate steps shall be taken to ensure cancellation/revocation

of such regularization and removal of encroachments.

14.1. In furtherance, this Court holds that as the land(s) was

acquired by the Municipal Board by use of funds of public

exchequer, thus, it shall be the sole prerogative of the Municipal

Board, in what manner, it utilizes the land(s) in question for the

benefit of public, and for the same, assurance has been given on

behalf of the respondents before this Court.

[2023:RJ-JD:30787] (18 of 18) [CW-2570/2023]

15. All pending applications stand disposed of.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

skant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)