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
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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.
[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.
[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
[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
[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
[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.
[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
[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
[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."
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
