Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 281 (RAJ)

Deen Dayal v. State of Rajasthan

2013-02-04

VINEET KOTHARI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:- "by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent No. 4 be directed to put his signatures on the sale-deed and thereafter the respondent- Board be directed to present the same for registration." 2. From a perusal of the Advocates notice dated 28.04.2010 (Annex.6)served by the petitioner on the Chairman, Municipal Board, Sumerpur District Pali, and the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Sumerpur, the Chairman did not sign on the sale deed for the strip of land whereas the Executive Officer had so signed, it is revealed that the petitioner was originally allotted a commercial plot of land measuring 16' x 11' only in Rajendrasa Market, Ward No. 9, Sumerpur, on which the petitioner had constructed a shop. According to the petitioner, there was a strip of land ("Khancha-Bhumi") on both the sides of his shop, which strip of land was available for being sold, which could not be utilised for any other alternative use and, therefore, as per the relevant rules, the petitioner was entitled to be given the same. The petitioner, therefore, applied for such strip of land vide his application dated 03.08.2009 (Annex.1) and upon approval of the proposal by the Board on 13.08.2009, the strip of land on both the sides of the allotted plot of land measuring 16' x 11', on one side 18' x 11' and on the other side 12' x 10'', total 330 square feet or 30.6 square meter, was to be allotted to him as a sp of land, and the sale-deed was prepared (Copy of such sale-deed is Annex.5 to the writ petition). The said sale-deed (Annex.5), although was signed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Sumerpur, however, the Chairman of the Board refused to sign the same and at this stage, the petitioner approached this Court by way of present writ petition claiming the aforesaid relief. 3. The said sale-deed (Annex.5), although was signed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Sumerpur, however, the Chairman of the Board refused to sign the same and at this stage, the petitioner approached this Court by way of present writ petition claiming the aforesaid relief. 3. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent- Municipal Board, Sumerpur, in which it has been averred that the said strip of land on both the sides of the petitioner's plot/shop, could not be sold to the petitioner, since the same was a public land having commercial value, and the Municipal Board was at liberty either to sell it by public auction to the highest bidder or the same would be put to public use as considered fit by the Municipal Board. 4. An application (IA No. 17894/10) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the applicants seeking impleadment as party respondents, has been filed by the applicants, who are 8 in number, viz. Ghisu Lal, Kishan Lal, Madan Lal, Smt. Ratan Mehta, Bhura Ram, Mohan Lal, Ranjeet Kumar and Heera Lal in the present writ petition, purportedly seeking to oppose the execution of sale-deed in favour of petitioner. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record the photographs produced by the petitioner, this Court is satisfied that land of the purported strip of land on both the sides of plot allotted to the petitioner of 16' x 11' ft. on which the petitioner has already constructed the shop, it cannot be said to be a strip of land, worthy of being allotted as "strip of land" to the petitioner or which cannot be put to any other use. The area of the so-called "strip of land" is admittedly more than the area already allotted to the petitioner measuring 16' x 11' = 176 sq. ft. whereas the so-called strip of land area sought by the petitioner is 330 sq. ft. 6. From the perusal of photographs as also the map, it is clear that the said public land, owned and possessed by the Municipal Board, Sumerpur, can either be put to public use or since the said land is having commercial value, can be put to public auction to fetch better optimum price for the same. ft. 6. From the perusal of photographs as also the map, it is clear that the said public land, owned and possessed by the Municipal Board, Sumerpur, can either be put to public use or since the said land is having commercial value, can be put to public auction to fetch better optimum price for the same. In view of this, it is not considered necessary to implead the applicants to be arrayed as party-respondents in the present lis at this stage and, therefore, the application (IA No. 17894/10) deserves to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the respondents directing them to execute the sale-deed in favour of present petitioner for the alleged strip of land. The Municipal Board is at liberty either to put the said land in question to public use or if they decide, to put the same to public auction for the commercial use, and they are free to do so. The writ petition deserves dismissal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the money already deposited by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 1,41,739/- vide Cheque No. 550774 dated 19.01.2010, which is alleged to have been encashed by the respondent- Municipal Board, Sumerpur, and the said amount is still lying with the Board, deserves to be refunded back to the petitioner with interest @ 6% per annum. 8. Accordingly, the respondent- Municipal Board, Sumerpur, is directed to refund the said amount to the petitioner forthwith within a period of one month from today with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of encashment of cheque till the date of actual refund. If, however, the Board fails to refund the said amount within the stipulated time frame of one month, the interest rate shall be 12% per annum for the aforesaid period. The original stamps of Rs. 7100/- on the impugned sale-deed may be returned to the petitioner of which, he may be seek the refund from the concerned Treasury in accordance with law. No costs. A copy of this order be sent tot he concerned parties and Municipal Board, Sumerpur forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******