JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. These writ petitions are directed against the action of the respondent-Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti ('KUMS') and the Municipal Board, Rawatsar in issuing notice to the petitioners to remove the encroachment made over pids i.e. platforms in front of the shops in Food Grain Mandi run by KUMS. 2. The relevant facts are that the proprietor of the petitioner Shri Ram Iron Store, a proprietorship concern (in writ petition No.3482/11), purchased the shop No.12 in Grain Mandi, Rawatsar from its original allottee Chandanmal by way of a registered sale deed dated 29.3.88. The petitioner is carrying on business of sale of paints, sanitary goods, pipe fitting goods, plastic goods, cement, welding rod, pump set accessories and all types of mechanical parts and diesel engine etc. since 1989 in the said shop. There exists an open space of the size 30'x65' in front of shops in the Grain Mandi commonly known as pid which according to the petitioner is being used by the owners of the respective shops for keeping their goods during the working hours of the shop which is necessary for beneficial use of the shops purchased. The Secretary, KUMS issued a notice dated 15.4.11 directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment made on the pids stating that the same is creating great difficulties for the traders carrying on business of agriculture produce. 3. Similarly, the father of the proprietor of the petitioner M/s. Joshi Iron Store Pvt. Ltd., a proprietorship concern (in writ petition no.3692/17), purchased a shop from one Shri Dulichand, who was allotted the said shop in Food Grain Mandi operated by KUMS, Rawatsar, which is also engaged in carrying on business of sale of cement, rods, paints, iron goods, spare parts, iron and steel etc. The proprietor of the petitioner concern has been served with a notice issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Rawatsar directing him to remove the encroachment made on pids of Food Grain Mandi by putting iron goods, plastic pipes, bazari, grit etc. thereon. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the platform in front of the shops forms part of the shops and therefore, petitioners cannot be deprived of the beneficial use thereof. thereon. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the platform in front of the shops forms part of the shops and therefore, petitioners cannot be deprived of the beneficial use thereof. Learned counsel submitted that if the pid is permitted to be used for the purpose of keeping agriculture produce of the farmers, it will amount to putting unreasonable restriction on the right of the petitioners inasmuch as it will obstruct the entry to the petitioners' shop and thus, the action of the respondent Municipal Board in directing the petitioners to remove its goods put on the platform, is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. 5. Mr. Vishal Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in writ petition no.3692/17, further submitted that admittedly, the Mandi Area is owned, regulated and controlled by KUMS and therefore, the Municipal Board, Rawatsar has no jurisdiction to inter meddle in the matter and thus, the notice issued is ex facie without jurisdiction. 6. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent KUMS in Writ Petition No.3482/11 submitted that from bare perusal of the Deed of Sale of Leasehold Rights executed in favour of the original allottee, makes it abundantly clear that the pids in front of the shops were never part of the shops and therefore, the contention sought to be raised by the petitioner that it is entitled to use the pids for storage of their goods is absolutely baseless. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner cannot be permitted to encroach upon the land which is not part of the premises sold by KUMS in favour of its predecessor in title and therefore, the action of the respondent in directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment made, cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that the Mandi Area now stands transferred to the Municipal Board and therefore, the Municipal Board is well within its jurisdiction to initiate the action for removal of the encroachment. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 8. Indisputably, the Agriculture Produce Market Committees are constituted to establish and regulate the markets for sale or purchase of agriculture produce so as to protect agriculturists from being exploited by middle man and profiteers and also to secure fair return of their produce. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 8. Indisputably, the Agriculture Produce Market Committees are constituted to establish and regulate the markets for sale or purchase of agriculture produce so as to protect agriculturists from being exploited by middle man and profiteers and also to secure fair return of their produce. It is not disputed before this court that the shops in question were allotted to the petitioners' predecessors in title for the purpose of operating the business of sale and purchase of agriculture produce. There is nothing on record suggesting that the petitioners or their predecessors in title were ever permitted by the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Rawatsar to carry on business of iron goods etc. in the shops allotted. Be that as it may, a bare perusal of lease deed reveals that the petitioners predecessors in title were extended lease hold rights over the plot no.18 situated in Food-grain Mandi, Rawatsar but no lease hold rights in the platform in front of the plots were ever created in favour of the petitioners' predecessors in title. In this view of the matter, the contention of the petitioners that the platform in front of the shops form part of the shop, is not substantiated by any material on record. 9. On account of the shops being allotted to the petitioners, they do not acquire any right to store their goods on the platform which is meant for use by the agriculturists. In this view of the matter, the action of the respondents in directing the petitioners to remove their goods from the platform so as to ensure smooth functioning of the Food Grain Mandi cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Further, if the petitioners have any claim regarding use of the platforms, nothing prevented them from raising the claim before the authorities concerned in response to the notice issued. 10. Further, if the petitioners have any claim regarding use of the platforms, nothing prevented them from raising the claim before the authorities concerned in response to the notice issued. Thus, without approaching the respondents in response to the notice, the writ petitions filed are absolutely pre mature moreso when, in terms of clause 11 of the lease deed, in the event of any dispute or difference at any time arising between the Government and the purchaser, the forum is provided for resolution of the dispute i.e. the reference of the dispute to the Secretary, Department of Revenue Government. 11. Coming to the contention of the petitioners that the Municipal Board has no jurisdiction to issue notice in respect of unauthorised occupation in the Mandi Area, it is the categorical stand of the Mandi Samiti before this court that the area in question already stands transferred to the Municipal Board. Moreover, as per Section 245 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short "the Act of 2009"), the Municipal Board is empowered to deal with encroachment in any land or space not being private property, whether such land or space belongs to or vests in the Municipality or not and thus, even otherwise, the action of the Municipal Board in taking the proceedings in exercise of the power conferred under Section 245 of the Act of 2009 and directing the petitioners to remove the encroachment made, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 12. In view of the discussion above, the writ petitions lack merits and deserve to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.