Kaushalya Devi v. State of Rajasthan — 1989 DIGILAW 789 (RAJ)

A.K. MATHUR, J.—All these five writ petitions involve a similar question of law and fact, therefore, they are disposed of by a common order. 2. For the convenient disposal of all the writ petitions, the facts given in the case Balkishan Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition no 791/8.9 are taken into consideration. 3. Petitioner is in possession of a plot of land situated between Krishi Upaj Mandi and F.C.I. Godown near Lalgarh Railway Station. This area is within the municipality of Bikaner and is situated in the area. The area is Kachchi Basti and is known as Indira Nagar Kachchi Basti. This is part of revenue village Beechwali. It is submitted that the State Government has issued from time to time notification and circulars for regularising the possession of these persons who are found in possession of the land at a particular date specified in the notification. Such regularisation was forgery done by the Municipality for Nazul lands lying within their jurisdiction. Thereafter this jurisdiction was conferred upon the Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner in relation to the lands within their jurisdiction. Petitioner applied for the regularisation of his land before the Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner and it was submitted that the petitioners application was allowed and the petitioners land was regularised on payment of a sum of Rs. 6, 150, 65p. It is submitted that after regularisation the Urban Improvement Trust Bikaner issued no objection certificate on 27th October, 1988 in favour of the petitioner to the Assistant Engineer Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Bikaner and to Assistant Engineer Public Health Engineer Department for grant of electric and water connection. It is submitted that on 16th February, 1989, Tehsildar Bikaner came over his land with the police force accompanied with the Collector. It is submitted that the Tehsildar with the help of the police officer and the labour engaged by him demolished the construction of the petitioner as well as boundary wall. This action was taken by the Collector and Tehsildar without any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner and other persons who has raised the construction were demolished on 16th of January 1989. All these persons approached the Collector and Urban Improvement Trust but without any result. Thereafter petitioner filed a suit in the court of Munsif Magistrate Bikaner. This action was taken by the Collector and Tehsildar without any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner and other persons who has raised the construction were demolished on 16th of January 1989. All these persons approached the Collector and Urban Improvement Trust but without any result. Thereafter petitioner filed a suit in the court of Munsif Magistrate Bikaner. The Urban Improvement Trust and the State of Rajasthan objected to the jurisdiction of the court and contended that this is a revenue land, therefore, the Revenue Court is only competent to try this suit. Thereafter petitioner withdrew the suit with permission to file a fresh suit. Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition and has prayed that respondents may be restrained from interfering with the petitioners possession over the land and same be regularised by the U.I.T. It has also been prayed that permission may be granted to the petitioner for raising construction over the plot. Ultimately petitioner has prayed that the respondent may be directed to hand over the possession to the petitioner. 4. A return has been filed by the respondents and respondents have denied the ground raised by the petitioner, it has been submitted that no regu-larisation was granted to the petitioner. It is further submitted that this land does not belong to the U.I.T. and this land belongs to the Revenue Department. As such the respondent U.I.T. has no jurisdiction whatsoever. It was submitted that it is true that the petitioners moved an application and in that application it was submitted that same may be regularised in accordance with the decision of the committee. It is further submitted that the petitioner on his own deposited the aforesaid amount. 5. I have heard both the learned counsel at length. A serious dispute was raised that whether this land belongs to the U.I.T. or to the . Revenue Department. Initially a show cause notice was issued on 5th April, 1989 and an order of status quo was ordered. Thereafter matter came up before me on 12th July 1989 and I direct that the Additional Collector may hear both the parties i.e. U.I.T., Revenue Department and the affected parties and summoned necessary record and thereafter sent his report. Additional Collector sent his report on 30th September, 1989. 6. Mr. Thereafter matter came up before me on 12th July 1989 and I direct that the Additional Collector may hear both the parties i.e. U.I.T., Revenue Department and the affected parties and summoned necessary record and thereafter sent his report. Additional Collector sent his report on 30th September, 1989. 6. Mr. Purohit learned counsel for the petitioner only confines his submission to the one aspect that this land belongs to the U.I.T. therefore, this declaration may be given that as this land belongs to the U.I.T., therefore, U.I.T. can regularise the possession of the petitioner in accordance with the Government order issued time to time for regularisation. 7. Mr. Jain learned counsel for the respondents strenuously urged before me that this land does not belong to the U.I.T. but it belongs to the Revenue Department and in support thereof Mr. Jain has invited my attention to section 92 and section 102 A of the Land Revenue Act. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reference of section 92 and 102 A of the Land Revenue Act has no relevance in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case a notification was issued by the Government under sub-section (1) of section 3 read with item (x) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1959). 8. Mr. Purohit learned counsel submitted that section 3 of the Act of 1959 clearly lays down that it is the Government who has power to place certain land at the disposal of the U.I.T and for which the U.I.T. shall prepare a master plan of that urban area. The item No. 10 of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act of 1959 defines the urban area. Learned counsel submitted that in pursuance of this, Government has already issued notification on 20th of May, 1976 and this present land in question which falls in the Revenue village of Beechwali has been placed at the disposal of Urban Improvement Trust and as such U.I.T. is competent to regularise the persons who are in possession of this area. 9. I think the submission of Mr. Purohit deserves to be accepted. For the batter appreciation of the controversy I reproduce here section 3 of the Act of 1959 which reads as under:— "3. 9. I think the submission of Mr. Purohit deserves to be accepted. For the batter appreciation of the controversy I reproduce here section 3 of the Act of 1959 which reads as under:— "3. Power of State Government to order preparation of master plan.-(l) The State Government may, by order, direct that in respect of and for any urban area in the State specified in the order, a civil survey shall be carried out and a master plan shall be prepared by such officer or authority as the State Government may appoint for the purpose. (2) For the purpose of advising the office or authority appointed under sub-section (1) on the preparation of the master plan, the State Government may constitute an advisory council consisting of a chairman and such number of other members as the State Government may deem fit." The definition of the urban area as given in item No. 10 of sub section (1) of section 2, which reads as under:- "(x) "urban area" means the urban area notified under section 3 or, as the case may be, under section 8. The notification which has been issued by the Government in exercise of the powers under section 3 read with item No. 10 of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act of 1959 reads as under-TOWN PLANNING (GP. 11) DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION Jaipur. June 16, 1976. No. F. 1 (13) T.P. 11/72. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 read with item (x) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act (Act No. 35 of 1959) and in supersession of this Department Notification No. F.1 (13) TP/II/72 dated 8.3.1973 the State Government hereby declared that Urban area of Bikaner will include the following villages:- - 1. Bichwali, 2. Anopsagar, 3. Udasar, 4. Ridmalsar Purohitan, 5. Sharsh Kajani, 6. Shivbari, 7. Joharbsar, 8. Kishmidesar, 9. Bhojanshala, 10. Bhinasar, 1 l. Sujandesar, 12. Shriramsar, 13. Karmisar, 14. Sharah Tallan 15. Rughnathsar, 16. Nathusar, 17. Sharsh Nathania 18. Chak Garbi, 19. Bikaner city and 23. Gangashahar, by order Sd/ Gordhanji Mishra, Secretary to the Government." A perusal of these provisions and the notification clearly lays down that the area falling in the revenue village of Beechwali has been placed at the disposal of the U.I.T. and for which the U.I.T. can prepare a master plan. Sharsh Nathania 18. Chak Garbi, 19. Bikaner city and 23. Gangashahar, by order Sd/ Gordhanji Mishra, Secretary to the Government." A perusal of these provisions and the notification clearly lays down that the area falling in the revenue village of Beechwali has been placed at the disposal of the U.I.T. and for which the U.I.T. can prepare a master plan. The master plans are prepared by the U.I.T. of the urban area and same are sent for approval of the Government. Under this master plan a scheme has to be prepared by the U.I.T. According to section 29 the scheme has to be sent to the Government for the approval. In the present case by virtue of the notification revenue village of Beechwali has been declared to be an urban area and placed at the disposal of U.I.T. Bikaner for planned development. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the U.I.T. to say that this land does not belong to the U.I.T. Mr. Purohit learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the has cited number of instances before the A.D.M. when he was inquiring this matter, that the U.I.T. has allotted part of this very land to the Krishi Upaj Mandi and requested the U.I.T. to produce all these records. But such records were not placed before the A.D.M. and he has also mentioned in his report that the U.I.T. was unable to place necessary record. Be that, as it may, I am not concerned with that but the fact remains that by virtue of the notification dated June 16, 1976 issued by the Government purported exercise of its power under section 3 read with item No. (x) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act of 1959 clearly shows that the present land which is in village Beechwali has been placed at the disposal of the U.I.T. It has not been disputed that this plot does not lie in village Beechwali. 10. Mr. Jain learned counsel for the U.I.T. has submitted that this notification of June 16,1976 issued by the Government will not vest the present land with the U.I.T. I asked Mr. 10. Mr. Jain learned counsel for the U.I.T. has submitted that this notification of June 16,1976 issued by the Government will not vest the present land with the U.I.T. I asked Mr. Jain to point out any provision in the U.I.T. Act to show that some more notification is required for further placing of the land but he was unable to do so, in fact the land still remains with the Government and the land has been placed at the disposal of the U.I.T. for improvement before land has been vested in the Government which has been placed at the disposal of the U.I.T. In fact the very purpose behind constitution of the Improvement Trust in the various towns was primarily for the purpose of a planned development of that town. Thus, to say that this land has not been placed at the disposal of the U.I.T. Bikaner is factually incorrect Mr. Purohit submits that on this very land the U.I.T. has removed some trespassers and has allotted this land to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. The learned counsel submitted that these instances clearly show that if the land was not placed at the disposal of the U.I.T., U.I.T. would not have undertaken this exercise removing trespassers and allotting some part of this land to the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. These instances may be correct or may not be correct but the fact is that this land stands placed at the disposal of the U.I.T. by a notification issued under S. 3 read with item No. (x) of sub-s. (1) of s. 2 of the Improvement Trust Act 1959, that provides a proper legal sanction. Therefore, these circumstances may not be decisive but the decisive is the notification of 16th June, 1976 as aforesaid. Mr. Jain learned counsel has invited my attention to sec. 102 A of the Land Revenue Act. Section 102 A of the Land Revenue Act conferred power on the State that any nazul or any such part of land under section 92 can be placed by the State Government at the disposal of any local authority for a particular purpose or it can be set apart for particular purpose with such restrictions as may be laid down from time to time. Under section 92 also certain power has been given to the State Government and the Collector to set apart land for any such purpose like pastures of the cattle or forest reserved or development of the abadi etc. These provisions of the Land Revenue Act operates where the land still continues to be the revenue land. But once the notification has been issued under the Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 declaring particular revenue village into an Urban area then provision of Land Revenue Act will ceases to have any value. Therefore, reference under section 102 A and 92 of the Act has no relevance in the present case. Mr. Jain learned counsel has invited my attention to a decision in the Urban Improvement Trust Bikaner vs. Kodumal. In that case the question was that when the land was placed at the disposal of the U.I.T., can Municipal Board still grant a lease of that nazul land. In that connection this Court held that once the land has been placed at the disposal of the U.I.T. the Municipal Board from that date will ceases to have jurisdiction to grant any lease of that particular land. But that is not the case here. Mere the Government has exercised its powers under Urban Improvement Trust Act 1959 and declared the village Beechwali where the present land in dispute lies as an Urban area. As such the U.I.T. Bikaner will have a jurisdiction to pass the orders for grant of lease or for regularisation as the case may be of this area, 11. In case S.B. civil writ petition No. 790/89 on 21st July 1989 this court passed the order that in pursuance of the notice issued to the petitioner by the Secretary U.I.T. Bikaner, petitioner shall appear before him on 24th of July 1989 and it was further directed that the Secretary U.I.T. may hear the arguments but report from the Additional District Magistrate as ordered by this Court. The Additional District Magistrate has submitted his report and in that he has given a finding that this land does not belong to U.I.T. and thereafter Mr. Jain informs me that the Secretary U.I.T. has passed the order. 12. The Additional District Magistrate has submitted his report and in that he has given a finding that this land does not belong to U.I.T. and thereafter Mr. Jain informs me that the Secretary U.I.T. has passed the order. 12. Since I have found that the land has been placed at the disposal of the U.I.T. by the Government as such it will be treated as a land placed at the disposal of the U.I.T. Bikaner. Therefore, whatever order has been passed by the Secretary will automatically stand nullified. 13. In the result I allow all the five writ petitions and declare that all the lands falling within the village Beechwali and other villages mentioned in the order dated June 16;1976 are urban areas and have been placed at the disposal of the U.I.T. The U.I.T., Bikaner shall consider the application of all these petitioners for regularisation in terms of the Govt. order passed on January 21,1982 or any other notification issued by the Government from time to time and decide the matter in accordance with law. No order as to costs.