JUDGMENT 1. :- By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the direction to the respondent Municipal Corporation, Jaipur (for short "Corporation") to regularise the land of the petitioner i.e. Plot No. 113, Near Central School, Bajaj Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur in view of the decision dated 6.11.89 of the Jaipur Development Authority. 2. The facts relevant to this writ petition, briefly stated are that on compassionate ground a plot of land situated opposite to the Bohra Ji Ka Bag at Tonk Road, Jaipur where the petitioner had been earning his livelihood by running Fodder Machine (Kutti Machine), had been given to the petitioner on rent vide Government directions dated 3.8.1968 (Ann.1). Vide order of tenancy dated 28.12.1968 (Ann.2) passed by the Secretary the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur (for short "UIT") a plot of land measuring 355.5 sq. yards was directed to be given on yearly rent of Rs. 131.54p. for the period from 23.12.1968 to 22.12.1969 for commercial use vide letter dated 1.3.69 (Ann.3). The petitioner was then asked by the Secretary of the UIT to furnish rent note on judicial stamp paper of Rs. 6/- on the same terms of tenancy as stipulated in the order (Ann.2) for the land measuring 80'x 80'=711.1 sq. yards and to deposit advance rent for the tenancy period of one year. Vide receipt dated 7.3.1969, the petitioner deposited Rs. 263.08p. towards rent of aforesaid land for the period from 23.12.68 to 22.12.1969. By letter No. 23503 dated 30.5.69, addressed to the Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Jaipur, the Secretary of the UIT Jaipur sent the site plan after due verification of the rented plot of land measuring 711.1 sq yards so as to forward the same to the petitioner. The petitioner also produced certificate dated 26.2.1994 (Ann.7) so as to show that land & building tax of the land in question was also paid by depositing different amounts viz. Rs. 311.50p., 61.50 and 547.50p. respectively for the periods (1973-74, 1977-78 and 1990-91) in the office of the Land & Building Tax Department, Jaipur. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that by his application dated 27.9.96 (Ann.8) addressed to the Dy. Mayor of the respondent Corporation stating therein all the facts and circumstances narrated above, he applied for regularisation of the land in his possession. Thereupon his aforesaid application (Ann.8) was sent by the Dy. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that by his application dated 27.9.96 (Ann.8) addressed to the Dy. Mayor of the respondent Corporation stating therein all the facts and circumstances narrated above, he applied for regularisation of the land in his possession. Thereupon his aforesaid application (Ann.8) was sent by the Dy. Mayor of the respondent Corporation by letter dated 17.12.1996 (Ann.9) to the Sr. Town Planner of the Planning Cell of the respondent Corporation stating therein that the locality where the plot in dispute is situated since stands transferred to the respondent Corporation, the file of the aforesaid plot of land which is alleged to have been in the Jaipur Development Authority (for short, JDA) was directed to be summoned from the JDA. Accordingly the Sr. Town Planner of the Corporation (respondent) sent a letter dated 24.12.1996 (Ann. 10) to the Secretary of the JDA and requested to send the file of plot in question (No.113, Tonk Road, Jaipur) so as to place the same before the Dy. Mayor of the Corporation. 4. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has also sent his application for regularisation of the plot in question to the State Government and, therefore, his application was forwarded by the Town Planning Department of the State Government by its letter dated 12.6.97 (Ann.11) called for comments from the Commissioner of the respondent Corporation. The petitioner further contended that he received a letter dated 16.6.98 (Ann.13) from the Commissioner of the respondent Corporation asking him to deposit the arrears of rent which were not being paid by him for the land in question, and total rent outstanding alongwith interest upto December, 1998, was demanded for a sum of Rs. 61,357, -which the petitioner deposited on 19.6.1998 vide receipt (Ann.14). 5. Hence this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking regularisation of the plot in land in question. Notice was issued to the respondent Corporation. On behalf of the respondent Corporation, reply to the writ petition has been filed. 6. I have perused the memo of writ petition and the reply thereto, and have heard both the learned counsel of the parties. 7. Notice was issued to the respondent Corporation. On behalf of the respondent Corporation, reply to the writ petition has been filed. 6. I have perused the memo of writ petition and the reply thereto, and have heard both the learned counsel of the parties. 7. Shri Gopi Chand Garg learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the JDA had taken the decision vide Agenda Item No. 42.14 to regularise the land in similar circumstances likewise the present petitioner, in favour of Shri Gul Mohd., Ghan Shyam Das Tambi, Zamalduddin, Smt. Dhapa Devi, Jetha Ram but the petitioner has not been favoured with regularisation of his land in dispute despite his persistent representation and, therefore, it has resulted in discrimination to him without any fault on his part and such an action on the part of the respondent violates constitutional mandate under the Constitution of India. Shri Garg also contended that in reply it has not been denied that the petitioner is not eligible rather it is an admitted position on record as would be evident from the reply of the respondent Corporation that the case of the petitioner for the regularisation of his land in dispute is pending for decision and, therefore, according to him, the action on the part of the respondent Corporation while regularising the others' cases and not regularising the petitioner's land is per se arbitrary. 8. During the course of hearing and in reply to the writ petition, contention advanced by Shri B.K. Sharma learned counsel for the respondent Corporation is that the land in dispute had never been allotted but was given on tenancy to the petitioner as would be evident from the orders of the State Government and the UIT (Annexures 1 & 2) and according to the terms and conditions of the tenancy the petitioner was allowed to continue in possession over the land in dispute as tenant inasmuch as no permission of construction over it has been produced on record before this Court. It has also been contended vehemently by Shri Sharma that the land was rented out to the petitioner by the UIT which came to be merged into the JDA, but the petitioner never moved either before the UIT or the JDA for regularisation of his possession over the land in dispute, and after the JDA came into existence on the abolition of the UTT, the petitioner has applied for regularisation only before the Corporation (respondent) for the first time in the year 1996, and his matter with the respondent Corporation has been pending for want of file which has been summoned from the JDA. Shri Sharma then contended that as would be evident from the petitioner's own case vide Annexure 14, he has deposited the outstanding rent to the tune of Rs. 61537/- on 19.6.98 for the land in dispute, therefore, his possession has been as tenant and that does not create any legal right to it. As regards the decision of the JDA vide Agenda Item No. 42.14 dated 6.11.89 whereby the lands of similarly placed persons like the petitioner have been regularised, Shri SViarma contended that such a decision even if taken by the JDA is not binding on the respondent Corporation because the Corporation is an independent statutory body to take the decision at its own under the relevant rules. However, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation also urged that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence so as to establish his case for discrimination qua others similarly placed persons like the petitioner with regard to the regularisation of the lands. 9. After having considered the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the view that it is an admitted position that the petitioner has been in possession over the land in dispute since before 3rd August, 1968 as tenant of the State Government, erstwhile UIT, JDA and then the respondent Corporation, and the petitioner has deposited the outstanding requisite rent alongwith interest upto December, 1998 as would be evident from receipt dated 19.6.98 (Ann.14) and thus the petitioner has not been defaulter on any count towards the tenancy or Nazrana and revenue etc. That apart, it is also not the case of the respondent Corporation in its reply that the petitioner is not eligible for regularisation of land in his possession since before August, 1968, rather it has been pleaded in the reply that. the file of the land in dispute has been received by the respondent Corporation from the JDA and the case of the petitioner is pending consideration, and further that the land in dispute over which the petitioner has been in possession, has been transferred to the respondent Corporation by the JDA and so admittedly it comes within municipal jurisdiction of the respondent corporation. The decision of the JDA has not been denied. The only contention is that the decision of the JDA is not binding on the respondent Corporation. 10. However, alongwith additional affidavit, the petitioner has also produced his application dated 18.9.1984 (Ann.15) with reference to the JDA public notice dated 26.8.84. In the said public notice according to the petitioner, the JDA notified that tenants who deposit the rent by 18.9.1984, their cases for regularisation would be considered sympathetically. Accordingly as stated in para 2 of the additional affidavit dated 16.8.99, the petitioner also deposited Rs. 5050/- towards rent. It has been contended that the decision to regularise the land vide Agenda item No. 42.14 was taken on 6.11.89 when the petitioner's application dated 18.9.84 (Ann.15) was also pending. It has also been stated in the aforesaid additional affidavit that cases of Smt. Napa Devi W/o Bheruram has also been taken by the Land & Building Disposal Committee in its meeting held on 7.10.1996 and cases of other persons have also been regularised. Zerox copy of the order dated 17.5.89 has also ben produced alongwith written arguments by the petitioner's learned counsel. The aforesaid order dated 17.5.89 prescribes the revision of reserved rates prescribed for disposal of the lands of different colonies of the Jaipur City under the decision taken in 40th meeting of the JDA held on 12.5.1989. 11. Zerox copy of the order dated 17.5.89 has also ben produced alongwith written arguments by the petitioner's learned counsel. The aforesaid order dated 17.5.89 prescribes the revision of reserved rates prescribed for disposal of the lands of different colonies of the Jaipur City under the decision taken in 40th meeting of the JDA held on 12.5.1989. 11. The decision taken by the JDA vide Agenda Item No. 42.14 has been quoted in para 14 of the writ petition, which runs as under : "The JDA has taken the decision vide Agenda Item No. 42.14 and accordingly it has been decided that after considering the Agenda Note the Committee decided that the land allotted on rent may be regularised on the following conditions : (i) 50% of the Current reserve price should be charged for residential plots of 400 sq. yards; (ii) For commercial plots upto 400 sq. yards current reserve price should be charged. (iii) the tenants who do not have possession on the rented land should not be regularised under the above conditions. The cases more than 400 sq. yards may be regularised at double the above price." 12. In my considered view, the application dated 18.9.84 (Ann. 15) of the petitioner for regularisation was undoubtedly pending on the decision taken by the JDA on or about 6.11.1989 when vide Agenda Item No. 42.14 the JDA decided to regularise the lands of similarly situated persons like the petitioner but his case was not regularised and according to the respondent Corporation his case is pending consideration after receipt of the file of the petitioner's land in dispute from the JDA. However, since after the decision of the JDA the land in dispute stands transferred to the respondent Corporation, the respondent Corporation is bound to regularise the petitioner's land on the pattern of the JDA's decision taken for similarly placed land occupiers like the petitioner whose cases have been regularised by the JDA in its decision referred to above. Non-consideration and not deciding the petitioner's case for regularisation even after the land stood transferred from the JDA to the respondent Corporation on the pattern of the JDA is per se arbitrary. Consequently, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 13. As a result of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. Non-consideration and not deciding the petitioner's case for regularisation even after the land stood transferred from the JDA to the respondent Corporation on the pattern of the JDA is per se arbitrary. Consequently, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 13. As a result of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The respondent Municipal Corporation Jaipur is directed to regularise the land of the petitioner (i.e. Plot No. 113, Near Central School, Bajaj Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur, which is in his possession) in view of the decisions dated 6.11.1989 and 17.5.1989 of the Jaipur Development Authority referred to by the petitioner in his writ petition. The orders for aforesaid regularisation be passed within a period of four weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this-judgment. No order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******