JUDGMENT 1. -Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is a mason which is an O.B.C. has filed the petition and challenged the impugned order dated 17.11.1998 (Annex. 14) passed by the District Collector, Churu accepting the application No. 7/98 filed by Laxmi Chand - present respondent No. 3 directing the SDO, Ratangarh to remove the encroachment as he was of the opinion that it was the duty of the Municipality to remove the encroachment which it failed to do it. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Gehlot for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the respondent-Municipality clearly submitted that no encroachment was made on the municipal land and that fact was even clearly stated by the Municipality itself at the time of hearing of the application before the District Collector. Inspite of that, the learned Collector observed in his order that it was the duty of the Municipality to prevent such encroachment. He, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the Collector directing the SDO to remove the encroachment under section 292 of the Municipalities Act is absolutely without jurisdiction. This submission was supported by learned counsel Mr. D.S. Rajvi appearing for the respondent-Municipality and he submitted that this was not an abadi land but it was an agricultural land, therefore, there was no question of removing the encroachment. Learned counsel Mr. B.L. Darji appearing for respondents No. 2 and 5 could hardly support the impugned order passed by the Collector as the impugned order was absolutely perverse. 4. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 17.11.1998 (Annex. 14) passed by the District Collector, Churu is hereby quashed and set aside.Writ allowed. *******