CW/1855/2002 of DEVENDRA KUMAR NAGDA Vs STATE and ORS on 19 December 2005

SB Civil Writ Petition No.1855/2002

Devendra Kumar Nagda v.State of Raj. & Ors.

thDate of Order :: 19 December, 2005

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR

Mr. J.P.Joshi, for the petitioner.

Mr. Lalit Kawadia]

Mr. Rajesh Panwar] for the respondents.

....

By instant writ petition following directionsare sought by the petitioner:-

(i) the respondent No.3/U.I.T., Udaipur maykindly be directed to regularise the oldpossession of the petitioner on the land inquestion or it may be directed to allot thestrip of land in question to the petitionerin accordance with the Rules of 1974;

(ii) the respondent/U.I.T. may kindly bedirected not to take any action for evictingthe petitioner from the land in question ondemolishing the building raised by thepetitioner on the said land till the matterof the petitioner for regularisation/allotment of strip of land in question isdecided by the U.I.T., Udaipur;

(ii) the respondent/U.I.T., Udaipur may berestrained from taking any action against thepetitioner without issuing any notice to thepetitioner to show cause against the proposedaction of eviction/demolition;”

It is stated by the petitioner that he isholding a land measuring 120x120 ft. on Udaipur-Chittor High Way and presently he is running a petrol pump onthe land referred above. The petitioner is havingpossession over the land measuring 840 sq. ft. adjacentto the land on which his petrol pump is situated.According to the petitioner, respondent U.I.T., Udaipurwithout regularising his possession over the landreferred above is going to remove him without adheringthe provisions of Section 92-A of the Rajasthan UrbanImprovement Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “theAct of 1959”). The petitioner is claimingregularisation of strip of land under Rajasthan UrbanImprovement (Disposal of Land) Rules, 1974 (hereinafterreferred to as “the Rules of 1959”).

A reply to the writ petition has been filedon behalf of the respondents stating therein thatentire writ petition is misconceived and is filedwithout having any cause of action. It is also statedin reply to the writ petition that the petitioner neversubmitted any application for allotment of strip ofland in question in accordance with the Rules of 1974.It is emphasised by counsel for respondent UIT, Udaipurthat the petitioner according to averments contained inthe writ petition is an encroacher and, therefore, heis having no right to retain the public land encroachedby him. It is further stated that if any illegalconstruction is made by the petitioner then necessaryaction in accordance with the provisions of the Act of1959 is required to be taken by competent authorities.

Counsel for the petitioner frankly admittedthat no application has been filed by the petitionerfor allotment of strip of land or for regularisation ofhis possession on the land in dispute. In view of thisadmitted position the relief claimed by the petitionerin present writ petition with regard to regularisationof the old possession over the land in dispute ispremature. Counsel for the petitioner also failed toshow any reason for valid apprehension of demolition ofthe building raised by him on 840 sq. ft. of land whichis said to be in his old possession. In view of it norelief as claimed by the petitioner can be granted inpresent writ petition.

However, looking to all the facts andcircumstances of the case I consider it appropriate todirect respondent UIT, Udaipur to consider therepresentation and application for allotment of stripof land if any submitted by the petitioner within aperiod of 15 days from today.

At this stage, it is stated by counsel forthe petitioner that an interim order is operating inhis favour since 18.6.2002 to maintain status quo inrespect to the property in question, therefore, ondisposal of present writ petition respondent U.I.T. Maydemolish construction on the land in dispute withoutadhering due process of law.

Conclusion

In my opinion, the apprehension of counselfor the petitioner is ill-founded as U.I.T. Being astatutory local body is always expected to take actionin accordance with law.

With the observations above the writ petitionis disposed of.

No order as to costs.

( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.

kkm/ps.