[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Hansa Devi vs The Director on 2 December, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:50948]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9259/2023

Smt. Hansa Devi W/o Shri Ramesh Chand Patel, Aged About 52
Years, By Caste Patel, Resident Of Nathelao Colony, Banswara
(Rajasthan).
                                                                    ----Petitioner

                                    Versus

1.       The Director, Local Self Govt. Department, Govt. Of
         Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2.       The Municipal Council, Banswara (Rajasthan).
3.       Shri Narendra Jain S/o Shri Inder Mal Jain, Resident Of
         Gali No. 28, Bahubali Colony, Banswara (Rajasthan).
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Suresh Shrimali
                                Mr. Rishabh Shrimali
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Narendra Thanvi
                                Mr. Mahendra Thanvi
                                Ms. Riya Goswami for
                                Mr. Pankaj Mehta.


             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

Conclusion of Arguments & Reserved on : 19/11/2025 Pronounced on : 02/12/2025

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition

aggrieved by the order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the Director,

Local Bodies, whereby the application filed by the private

respondent for seeking impleadment as party respondent was

allowed in the pending appeal filed by the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the writ

petition submitted that a patta was issued in favour of the present

petitioner by the respondent No.2 - Municipal Council on

(Uploaded on 02/12/2025 at 04:22:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50948] (2 of 7) [CW-9259/2023]

19.03.2021. Based on a complaint, the respondent - Municipal

Council issued a notice to the petitioner on 24.05.2022, followed

by another notice dated 22.11.2022 and proceeded to cancel the

patta issued in favour of the petitioner while exercising the power

under Section 73-B of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 ('the

Act of 2009') vide order dated 06.01.2023.

2.1 Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.01.2023 passed by

the Municipal Council, Banswara, an appeal was preferred before

the Director, Local Bodies under Section 73-B(4) of the Act of

2009. It is submitted that the complainant, on whose complaint

the Municipal Council, Banswara proceeded to cancel the patta,

moved an application seeking impleadment as party respondent in

the pending appeal before the Director, Local Bodies. The Director,

Local Bodies has wrongly impleaded the private respondent as

party respondent, as the appeal was filed precisely on the ground

that the Director, Local Bodies, without following the procedure as

provided under the provisions of Section 73-B of the Act of 2009,

proceeded to cancel the patta. It is submitted that for the

purpose of deciding this issue, the presence of private respondent

is not at all required and therefore, the private respondent is

neither necessary nor a proper party in the pending appeal.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent

No.3 submitted that the respondent No.3 is directly concerned

with the outcome of the appeal. It is submitted that the

respondent is having title based on registered patta (lease deed)

over the disputed plot and if the appeal is allowed and patta is

restored, then his rights would be adversely affected. It is further

(Uploaded on 02/12/2025 at 04:22:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50948] (3 of 7) [CW-9259/2023]

submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if

the private respondent is heard by the Director, Local Bodes while

deciding the appeal.

3.1 In support of such contentions, the respondent has placed

reliance on judgments passed in case of Pruthvirajsinh

Nodhubha Jadeja (D) By LRs vs. Jayeshkumar Chhakaddas

Shah & Ors., reported in (2019) 9 SCC 533; Fullerton India

Credit Co. Ltd. vs. Aftab Ahmed, reported in (2020) 4 CivCC

427; and Smt. Darshna vs. Government of NCT of Delhi &

Ors., reported in 2019(2) CivCC 173 (Delhi).

3.2 While referring to the judgments aforesaid, learned counsel

for the respondent submitted that the respondent No.3 is

necessary party as an effective order in his absence could not be

passed and therefore, the order passed by the Director, Local

Bodies is required to be affirmed and the present writ petition is

required to be dismissed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

5. The issue which is required to be first considered as to what

is the ground on which the petitioner has preferred appeal. On

perusal of the appeal, one of the ground which petitioner has

raised is with regard to the procedure, which has been followed by

the Municipal Council, Banswara while proceeding to cancel patta

in exercise of power under Section 73-B of the Act of 2009. For

ready reference, Section 73-B of the Act of 2009 is reproduced as

under :-

(Uploaded on 02/12/2025 at 04:22:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50948] (4 of 7) [CW-9259/2023]

"73-B. Revocation of allotment and cancellation of lease deed.- (1) Notwithstanding anything 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 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 day, if it or he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.

(Uploaded on 02/12/2025 at 04:22:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50948] (5 of 7) [CW-9259/2023]

(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."

5.1 The procedure as provided under Section 73(B) of the Act of

2009 requires that an opportunity of hearing is to be afforded to

the patta-holder and thereafter the concerned Municipal Council /

Board considering the reply is required to decide while satisfying

itself to pass a reasoned order. In the present case, the patta has

been cancelled by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Banswara

vide order dated 06.01.2023, which is reproduced as under :-

"Øekad%i-¼-½@u-i-ck-@utqy@2023@9646 fnukad% 6@1@23 fujLrh i= Jherh galk nsoh iRuh jes"kpUnz iVsy fuoklh%& ukFksyko dkWykuh ckalokMk eks-&9414101311

fo'k;%& Hkw vkoUVu i= 92@10596 fnukad 19&03&2021 fujLr djus ckcrA izlax%& ifj'kn~ uksfVl Øekad 1643 fnukad 24&05&2022 o 8018 fnukad 22&11&22 ds lanHkZ esaA

mijksDr fo'k;kUrxZr izkalfxd uksfVl ds lanHkZ esa ys[k gS fd vki }kjk uksfVl ds tokc esa viuh Hkwfe ds LokfeRo lEcfU/kr nLrkost ,oa lUrks'kizn ugh gksus ls jktLFkku uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e 2009 dh /kkjk 73B ds vUrxZr tqBs nLrkost is"k djds iÍk izkIr fd;s tkus ds d`R; dks lR;kfir gksus ij ifj'kn }kjk jktLFkku Hkw jktLo vf/kfu;e 1956 dh /kkjk 90¼d½ ¼8½ ,oa rr~/khu cuk;s x;s jktLFkku uxjh; {ks= ¼d`f'k ls xsj d`f'k iz;kstu ds fy, mi;ksx dk vuqKk ,oa vkoUVu½ fu;e 2012 dk Hkw vkoUVu Øekad 92@10596 fnukad 19&03&2021 dks uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e 2009 dh /kkjk 73B dh iznr "kfDr;ks ds rgr fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA ftls ifj'kn esa uksfVl izkfIr ds 3 fnol ds Hkhrj eqy iÍk o yht MhM tek djkosA lks lqfpr gksA sd/-

vk;qDr uxj ifj'kn ckalokMk Øekad%i-¼-½@u-i-ck-@utqy@2023@9647 fnukad% 6@1@23

(Uploaded on 02/12/2025 at 04:22:13 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50948] (6 of 7) [CW-9259/2023]

izfryhih %& 1- Jheku miiath;d miiath;u dk;kZy; ckalokMk fu;ekuqlkj vfxze dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf'kr gSA sd/-