JUDGMENT 1. - These three special appeals, one by Kanhaiya Lal and others by Municipal Board, Hindaun, arise out of the same matter and have been heard together by common consent and are being disposed by a common order. 2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are not very much in dispute. Kanhaiya Lal is owner of a residential house in the town of Hindaun, as shown in Annexure 8, annexed to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6487/1991. Adjacent to this house was a parcel of land, belonging to Municipal Board, Hindaun. Some where around 1980 or slightly prior thereto, Kanhaiya Lal encroached upon this parcel of land and sought its regularisation. He also raised certain constructions over the plot and converted it into a shop, wherein he is running his petty business of Hair Cutting Saloon.After hearing Kanhaiya Lal, Municipal Board, Hindaun, decided to regularise the encroachment measuring 14.78 sq. yards, but asked Kanhaiya Lal to pay market-value at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per sq. yard, totalling to Rs. 22170/-. Kanhaiya Lal was informed that if the amount was not deposited within a period of seven days from receipt of Annexure 1, he shall be liable to be evicted from the disputed land. Aggrieved by this order, Kanhaiyalal, filed a revision before the Collector, Sawaimadhopur, bearing No. 95/1985. By this revision, Kanhaiyalal sought to challenge that part of the Notice/Order of the Municipal Board, by which be was required to deposit 22170/-rupees. This revision was disposed of by Collector, vide order dated 10.3.1986. The Collector, dismissed the revision petition on the ground that he had no jurisdiction in the matter. Aggrieved, petitioner approached Divisional Commissioner, Kota, by filing a further revision petition, Bearing No. 74/1987, Kanhaiya Lal v. Municipal Board, Hindaun . The Divisional Commissioner was of the view that the Municipal Board had asked for an exorbitant price from Kanhaiya Lal. He, therefore, modified the order of the Municipal Board and directed that the price of the land may be deposited at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per square yard. Aggrieved by this order of the Divisional Commissioner, Kanhaiyalal filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6487/1991. Municipal Board, Hindaun was also aggrieved by the. order and filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1967/1992. 1000/- per square yard. Aggrieved by this order of the Divisional Commissioner, Kanhaiyalal filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6487/1991. Municipal Board, Hindaun was also aggrieved by the. order and filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1967/1992. Both these Writ-Petitions were heated together by learned Single Judge of this Court, who held that no basis had been given for fixing the value of the land at Rs. 1500/- per Sq. Yard by the Municipal Board or Rs. 1000/- by the Divisional Commissioner. Learned Single Judge, therefore, directed that Kanhaiya Lal may deposit the price of the land at the rate of Rs. 500/- per square yard within one month from the date of the order. He further directed that on deposit of the value of the land at the said rate, the land may be regularised, otherwise the Municipal Board would be free to evict Kanhaiyalal from the land in question in accordance with law. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 281/1992, has been filed by Kanhaiya Lal against the said order.D.B. Civil Special Appeal Nos. 403/1992 and 312/1993, have been filed by Municipal Board, Hindaun, against the said order. As already s rated, all the three appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 3. Initially, Shri P.C. Jain contended that one Battu Lal was also a trespasser on the land which adjoined the disputed land. Municipal Board, Hindaun , regularised the trespass made by Battu Lal, upon payment of price at the rate of Rs. 30/- per square yard. It was urged that the respondent Municipal Board has discriminated against the appellant by asking for an exorbitant price, for which there was no basis. It is urged that the Divisional Commissioner and the learned Single Judge also fell in error in not directing the Municipal Board, Hindaun, to accept price of the land at the rate of Rs. 30/- per square yard, the price at which trespass committed by Batto Lal was regularised. He, alternatively submits that now the Collector, Sawaimadt (Sic)topjr, may be directed to determine the price of the land in accordance with the rules , as on the date of encroachment, after hearing both the parties, so that Kanhaiya Lal can get the trespass regularised on payment of reasonable compensation computed in accordance with law and on the basis of evidence adduced before the Collector. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the Municipal Board opposes the appeal of Kaithaiya.Lal and submits that his appeals should be accepted, because learned Single Judge had it basis before it for reducing the price arrived at by the Municipal Board.The Divisional Commissioner had also no basis before it for revising the price asked for by the Municipal Board. He submits that the appeals filed by the Municipal Board should be accepted and the appeal of Kanhaiyalal should be dismissed. 5. We have given our earnest consideration to the rival contentions and have perused the record, which has been produced before us. The regularisation in favour of Battu Lal, was made in the year 1968. Much water had flown since then, when Kanhaiya Lal encroached upon the land in the year 1980. Case of Kanhaiya Lal, cannot therefore, stand at par with case of Battu Lal Jain. It may be stated that the land in dispute is commercial one and Kanhaiya Lal cannot ask for regularising the trespass on payment of a price which was relevant in the year 1968, but had lost all relevance in the year 1980.Learned Single Judge, was, therefore, perfectly justified in holding that Kanhaiya Lal, cannot complaint of any hostile discrimination, when the price of the land was not fixed at par with the lands encroached upon by Battu Lal in the year 1968. We, therefore, find no substance in the contention that Kanhaiya Lal should be permitted to pay the price at the rate at which Battu Lal had been made to pay the price. 6. Now, it is an admitted position before us that none of the Tribunals below had any material or basis for arriving at the price of the land in dispute.Even the learned Single Judge did not have any material before him on the basis of which the price of the land could have been fixed at Rs. 500/- per square yard.In our opinion, it is a fit case, where the matter should go back to Collector, Sawaimadhopur, who should allow both the parties to adduce evidence regarding the market value of the land as on the date of the encroachment. This should be done by the Collector, after giving notice to both the parties within a period of six months from the date he receives copy of this order. This should be done by the Collector, after giving notice to both the parties within a period of six months from the date he receives copy of this order. The Collector, Sawaimadhopur, shall determine the price of the land and Kanhaiya Lal, who has been in possession of the land without having the possession regularised, shall pay the amount so detennined with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 9.6.1980 to Municipal Board, Hindaun, within a period of three months from the date the Collector, decides the matter.In case, Kanhaiya Lal fails to make payment along with interest as determined by the Collector, the Municipal Board, Hindaun, shall be entitled to take possession of. the land in accordance with law. 7. The order of the learned Single Judge, as also the orders of Municipal Board, Hindaun, of Collector, Sawaimadhopur and of Divisional Commissioner are accordingly modified. 8. In the a circumstances of the case, costs are made easy. 9. copy of this order may be sent to Collector, Sawaimadhopur, expeditiously.Appeal disposed of accordingly. *******