Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1503 (RAJ)

Shamshi Alam v. Urban Improvement Trust

2022-05-10

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The case comes up on an application (Inward No. 01/22) preferred for early hearing, however, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard and decided finally today itself. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: "(i) The order dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure-12) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside, and the Order dated 13.07.2001 (Annexure-3) passed under 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 may kindly be restored. (ii) Further, the order passed by the UIT dated 10.01.2017 (Annexure-11) rejecting the mutation application of the petitioner may also be declared illegal and be quashed and set-aside. (iii) Further Respondent-UIT may be directed to make necessary entries in their record mutating the Plot No.111 in the name of the petitioner, in their records." 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that proceedings under Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were undertaken by the respondents for number of khasras including khasra Nos. 879 and 900 and an order to that effect was passed on 13.07.2001. The petitioner purchased the plots from the erstwhile khatedar of the land, namely, Shahid Hussain. The problem arose to the petitioner when the order dated 13.07.2001 was challenged by the respondent no.3 by way of filing an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur for setting aside the same and the learned Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur vide order dated 30.08.2016 allowed the appeal and quashed the order dated 13.07.2001 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the persons named in the order dated 13.07.2001. As a consequence of the order dated 30.08.2016, the application of the petitioner for mutation was rejected vide order dated 10.01.2017 (Annexure-11). 4. In these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the Divisional Commissioner and the consequential order dated 10.01.2017 refusing the mutation of the land in favour of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur on the face of it, is unsustainable as the same was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Not only this, no person named in the order dated 13.07.2001 was arrayed as party respondent in the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur on the face of it, is unsustainable as the same was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Not only this, no person named in the order dated 13.07.2001 was arrayed as party respondent in the appeal. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent no.3 was present throughout during the proceedings before passing the order under Section 90B on 13.07.2001, yet an averment was made in appeal that he was not aware of the proceedings under Section 90B. In any case, the fact of the matter is that the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur is having civil and evil consequences, therefore, the same could not have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other like persons, therefore, the same cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, he prayed that the order dated 30.08.2016 may be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 has vehemently submitted that since the respondent no.3 was not given adequate number of plots and the area, he preferred an application on 18.01.2006 itself for giving him the additional piece of land in lieu of the land utilized for construction of the road. Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to dispute the fact that the respondent no.3 was present during the course of proceedings undertaken under Section 90B of the Act. He only prays that the genuine grievance of the respondent no.3 may be allowed to be agitated before the competent authorities of the respondent department. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that the proceedings were undertaken by them under Section 90B of the Act perfectly in conformity with the provisions of law and the same attained finality and the appeal was filed by the respondent no.3 after the lapse of about 16 years. Not only that, the order was passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur without giving an opportunity of hearing to all those persons who were named in the order dated 13.07.2001. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the entire proceedings of development has come to a halt in view of the order passed on 30.08.2016 by the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the entire proceedings of development has come to a halt in view of the order passed on 30.08.2016 by the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur. 8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the pleadings as well as the impugned order dated 30.08.2016. 9. The factual dispute with respect to the proceedings undertaken under Section 90B of the Act cannot be disputed by any of the parties as the order dated 13.07.2001 reflects the khasras numbers in which the khasra of respondent no.3 is also reflected. The filing of the application by the respondent no.3 before the authorities on 18.02.2006, clearly shows that he was asking for some more land as some part of the land surrendered by him was utilized by UIT, Udaipur for construction of the road. The filing of this application clearly goes to show that the respondent no.3 was fully aware of the proceedings undertaken by the UIT, Udaipur under Section 90B of the Act and his participation in the same is established beyond doubt. 10. In view of the facts narrated above, it appears that the respondent no.3 had filed the appeal before the Divisional Commissioner laying challenge to the proceedings undertaken under Section 90B of the Act by the respondents on the pretext to get some more land, but the contentions raised in the appeal on the face of it are false and incorrect. Not only this, the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur clearly fell in error by allowing the appeal and quashing the order dated 13.07.2001 without giving an opportunity of hearing to those persons who were party to the proceedings under Section 90B of the Act and the subsequent purchasers and their names were reflected in the order dated 13.07.2001. The memo of appeal clearly shows that no person named in the order dated 13.07.2001 was arrayed as party respondents and vide order dated 30.08.2016, while setting aside the order dated 13.07.2001, the entire proceedings undertaken under Section 90B were quashed. The order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur on 30.08.2016, is laconic as the same was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and is not sustainable, thus, is required to be quashed and set aside. 11. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur on 30.08.2016, is laconic as the same was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and is not sustainable, thus, is required to be quashed and set aside. 11. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur as well as the order dated 10.01.2017 (Annexure-11) are quashed and set aside. 12. In case, the respondent no.3 prefers a representation before the respondent no.1, the same will be decided by him within a period of three months from the date of its filing, strictly in accordance with law.