Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 1010 (RAJ)

Urban Improvement Trust v. Board of Revenue

1998-09-14

GYAN SUDHA MISRA

body1998
Honble MISRA, J–The tussle between the Urban Improvement Trust, Kota (for short `UIT) and the Municipal Council, Kota has thrust respondents Nos.2 to 5 into a litigation which finally was decided in favour of the Municipal Council, Kota as a result of which the permission for construction granted by the Municipal Coun- cil, Kota in favour of respondents Nos.3 to 5 has been upheld by the Board of Reve- nue in a revision petition which had been preferred by respondents Nos.3 to 5. (2). In order to elaborate the controversy a slight enumeration of the facts in so far as it is relevant, are recorded as follows:- (2). A plot of land was purchased by one Jhoomarmal Govind Narain from UIT, Kota which was sold on 7.8.79 to the respondents Nos. 3,4 and 5. The respon- dents Nos.3 to 5 after the purchase; wanted to raise construction on the plot and for this purpose submitted an application to the Municipal Council, Kota for grant of permission of construction on 30.6.81 and 26.7.81 which was granted. The UIT, Kota-the petitioner herein, felt aggrieved with grant of such permission by the Municipal Council, Kota as it felt that the jurisdiction of UIT, Kota while granting such permission has been usurped by the Municipal Council, Kota and hence it filed an appeal before the Collector, Kota. The Collector, Kota vide his order dated 13.4.84 was pleased to hold that the permission for construction in respect of the land purchased by respondents Nos. 3 to 5 fell outside the four-walls of the city of Kota on which permission for construction could have been accorded only by the UIT as it felt that the Municipal Councils rights on the land in question were confined only in regard to its maintenance sanitation and development work and in no case it could extend to the exercise of discretion to accord sanction for construction as the Collector was of the opinion that such permission could be granted by the UIT only, in respect of the land outside the boundaries of the City. (4). The Municipal Council, Kota did not challenge the order of the Collector but as the contesting respondents Nos.3 to 5 were directly affected by the order of the Collector, Kota, they moved the Member, Board of Revenue wherein the decision of the Collector was challenged. (4). The Municipal Council, Kota did not challenge the order of the Collector but as the contesting respondents Nos.3 to 5 were directly affected by the order of the Collector, Kota, they moved the Member, Board of Revenue wherein the decision of the Collector was challenged. The Municipal Council, Kota however, was also impleaded as a party-respondent. The Municipal Council, Kota, therefore, also supported the case of the contesting respondent Nos. 3 to 5 who were petitioners before the Board of Revenue and all the counsel for the parties including the counsel for the UIT were heard before the Board of Revenue. (5). The learned Member, Board of Revenue took into consideration various agreements arrived at between the representatives of the Municipal Council, Kota and the UIT, Kota which has been discussed in detail in the impugned order of the Board of Revenue and need not be reiterated. Suffice it to state that the agreements the letter written by the Secretary, Town Planning to all the UITs regarding their extent of jurisdiction were considered in detail by the Board of Revenue from time to time and it further took into consideration the order dated 4.10.82 issued by the Town Planning Department which clearly disclosed that the Government intended that the Municipal Council will have all the rights and responsibility in regard to a non scheme area and the jurisdiction of the UIT for according sanction for construction would be confined to the scheme areas only. This order of the Government was passed relying on the previous Government Circular dated 7.6.76. Thus taking into consideration all these provisions about the jurisdiction of the UIT, it was inferred by the Member Board of Revenue that the disputed land which is located in Gumanpura area which is a non-scheme area, always vested in the Municipal Council and not in the UIT and hence it was held that the objections raised by the UIT, Kota for cancelling the permission granted in favour of respon- dents Nos. 3 to 5 were frivolous and permission had been cancelled merely to harass the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 (Petitioners there) merely to forestall the construction made by the respondents No.3-5 herein. (6). 3 to 5 were frivolous and permission had been cancelled merely to harass the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 (Petitioners there) merely to forestall the construction made by the respondents No.3-5 herein. (6). The UIT, Kota being aggrieved with the order of the Member, Board of Revenue thereafter filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Member, Board of Revenue and also filed a seperate writ petition bearing SBCWP No. 6137 of 96 wherein a prayer was sought to declare that in the urban area of Kota it is UIT alone which is competent to approve the plans for construction of the buildings. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that the said writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 24.8.98 of a Bench of this Court. It is thus obvious that the plea of the UIT that it alone is competent to grant sanction to the construction of the buildings was rejected even when it moved this Court by way of an independent writ petition on this question. Besides the aforesaid order the Member, Board of Revenue also has assigned cogent reasons in the impugned order taking into consideration the agreements arrived at between the Municipal Council, Kota and the UIT, Kota regarding the extent of their jurisdiction for construction of the building in which I find no infirmity as the finding arrived at by the Board of Revenue in this regard is based on all the relevant agreements arrived at between the Municipal Council, Kota and the UIT, Kota. (7). It may further be mentioned that this writ petition preferred by the UIT, Kota against the impugned order of the Member, Board of Revenue, was filed in the year 1988 against an order dated 30.4.84 i.e. 4 years after passing of the order of the Member, Board of Revenue for which no explanation has been offered. Although no period of limitation is prescribed for filing a writ petition but any one affected by an order is certainly expected to be reasonably vigilant even in terms of time in order atleast to establish his bonafide about the cause and it is more so when it is filed by some public authority to present the Court from drawing inference on account of unreasonable delay that the cause is frivolous, unless the affected party advances cogent reason for the delay. (8). (8). Taking into consideration the entire aspects of the matter, I find no merit in the instant case, as the petitioner has failed to point out any infirmity in the order of the Board of Revenue. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed without costs.