JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been listed in the category of ‘for orders’. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally today, itself. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- “(a) the respondents may kindly be directed to remove all type of illegal constructions raised over the land in question on the basis of forged, fabricated and concocted documents and restrained in raising any type of construction over the land in question. (b) the respondents may kindly be directed not to grant any permission of construction of commercial complex on the land in question to the private respondent and if any permission in this regard has been granted, the same may kindly be cancelled and also cancelled all proceedings initiated for grant of permission of raising construction of commercial complex. (c) the respondents may kindly be directed to fill up the pit dugout at the site over the land in question hence forth. (d) the respondents may kindly be directed to not to issue new patta of the land in question to the private respondent as the private respondent is having no patta of the land in question as the land is with the petitioner and for using it for construction of Ramdwara and Satsang Bhawan because the same has been handed over to the petitioner by the owner of the property (e) any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner. (f) Costs of this writ petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that within the territory of Abu Road, there is a temple of Shri Ramji under the trust of Ramji Mandir Trust, which is being possessed by Bhakati Hardya Sharan without having any right, title and interest over it. There is a land admeasuring 33 sq fts x 36 sq fts= 1188 sq fts in Ward No.10 near the house of Ishwar Singh Choutharam, Sadar Bazar, Abu Road which is in the name of Shri Bhagwan Kishan Swaroop son of Shanti Swaroop Agarwal, resident of Akara Bhatta of Abu Road. There is a land admeasuring 33 sq fts x 36 sq fts= 1188 sq fts in Ward No.10 near the house of Ishwar Singh Choutharam, Sadar Bazar, Abu Road which is in the name of Shri Bhagwan Kishan Swaroop son of Shanti Swaroop Agarwal, resident of Akara Bhatta of Abu Road. The respondent Bhakati Hardya Sharan started illegal construction over it without sanction/permission of the respondent-Municipal Council, Abu Road, upon which, various complaints were made to the respondents. After coming into knowledge about the complaint, the respondent-Bhakati Hardya Sharan submitted an application for sanction/permission of construction based on the forged documents. The Municipal Council processed the application for sanction/permission of raising construction in the year 2018 over the land of patta No.537 dated 29.09.1943. In the report, a fact came to knowledge that the applicant-respondent had shown the size of land as 33 sq.fts x 36 sq.fts=1188 sq.fts whereas, the size as shown in Patta No.537 for plot is 28 sq.fts x 45 sq.fts = 1260 sq.fts, and from the map, the same was not being tallied. Furthermore, the four corners of the plot in question did not match. Considering the application for sanction of construction, the Municipal Council took two decisions viz. (1) Issue notice for filling up of pit and (2) Asked Senior Town Planner, not to proceed further for making conversion of the land from residential to commercial. 4. The respondent-Municipal Council, Abu Road, looking to the public agitation in regard to the illegal dugout, made construction without issuing of NOC in this regard by the Municipal Council, Abu Road and the respondent-Bhakati Hardya Sharan was restrained for raising any type of construction unless and until the sanction of construction is issued and the raw material lying at the site was also seized and in this regard, a news item was also published in the news paper. The respondent Municipal Council, Abu Road vide its letter dated 16.5.2019 (Annexure-3) sought a technical opinion in regard to the grant of mixed permission of residential as well as the commercial, over the land in question situated in Ward No.10, Sadar Bazar by respondent-Bhakati Hardya Sharan for construction of Basement, Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor. The respondent-Municipal Council. The respondent Municipal Council, Abu Road vide its letter dated 16.5.2019 (Annexure-3) sought a technical opinion in regard to the grant of mixed permission of residential as well as the commercial, over the land in question situated in Ward No.10, Sadar Bazar by respondent-Bhakati Hardya Sharan for construction of Basement, Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor. The respondent-Municipal Council. Abu Road on receiving the application of the respondent-Bhakati Hardya Sharan for sanction of construction over the land in question, invited objections from the public at large of Abu Road by issuing and publishing the Objection Information dated 3.1.2019 (Annexure-4) and 4.1.2019 (Annexure-5). While coming into knowledge of such facts of illegal constructions and dugout on the plot in question at Ward No.10 Sadar Bazar, Abu Road, the residents of Ward No. 10 submitted their objections in regard to such construction of basement after demolishing the old building structure on the land in question and digging out deep pit at that site, as there was apprehension of the residential buildings getting collapsed and therefore, in the said objections, it was prayed that the existing pit may be filled up by the respondent No.3. 5. The respondent Municipal Council, Abu Road also issued a notice vide letter dated 17.5.2019 (Annexure-7) to Shri Bhakati Hardya Sharan of Shri Ramji Mandir Trust and informed him that he has submitted application for construction over the plot sized 33 sq.fts x 36 sq.fts = 1188 sq.fts whereas, the measurement of the land in patta is 28 x 45 = 1260 sq. fts, the patta so submitted with application is not of the land in question rather is of another land at another place, furthermore, a pit had been dugout at land in question and it was directed to fill up the so called pit and explain the opposition about the patta and map otherwise action would be taken for committing forgery with the respondent- Municipal Council, Abu Road. Looking to such facts and circumstances, the petitioner served a legal notice to the respondents. The petitioner also submitted yet another representation dated 4.6.2019 (Annexure-9) to the respondent Municipal Council, Abu Road. Despite legal notice, the respondent Bhakati Hardya Sharan still had not filled up the pit so dugout at the land in question. More so, said Pit still is lying open and there is every possibility of causing loss of human life. The petitioner also submitted yet another representation dated 4.6.2019 (Annexure-9) to the respondent Municipal Council, Abu Road. Despite legal notice, the respondent Bhakati Hardya Sharan still had not filled up the pit so dugout at the land in question. More so, said Pit still is lying open and there is every possibility of causing loss of human life. Further the residents of Ward No. 10 and the public at large are facing so many difficulties and they are living under risk. 6. The respondent Bhakati Hardya Sharan started new correspondence with the District Collector. Sirohi and submitted yet another application dated 3.7.2020 (Annexure-11) and submitted that old building has been demolished situated at Sadar Bazar, Abu Road therefore he may be granted permission of reconstruction of the same. On receiving the application by the office of the District Collector, Sirohi, the Tehsildar Abu Road and the Executive Officer, Municipal Council. Abu Road were informed that Shri Ramji Mandir Trust, Abu Road has stated in his application that the Ramji Mandir Trust is registered trust under Public Trust Act and stated that the Trust is having a commercial building in Ward No. 10, Sadar Bazar. Abu Road and having the position as tattered, the said building has been demolished and sought permission for re construction of the said commercial building. The District Collector vide letter dated 21.8.2020 (Annexure-13) asked the respondent Bhakati Hardya Sharan of Ram Mandir to remove deficiency of certain documents in his application i.e. Deed of Patta which was not annexed with it, information of order of conversion of land from residential to commercial and asked him to submit the same within 07 days. 7. Shri Bhagwan son of Shanti Swaroop Agarwal, the patta holder of the land in question submitted another representation dated 24.8.2020 (Annexure-14) against the new institution of proceedings for grant of permission to Bhakati Hardya Sharan over the land having the interest, right and fifle of him which were given to the petitioner for construction of Ramdwara and Satsang Bhawan. The Tehsildar, Abu Road and Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Abu Road, the District Collector, Sirohi again issued yet another letter and asked to submit the clear factual report in regard to grant permission of commercial construction as sought by earlier letter dated 16.7.2020 (Annexure-12). The Tehsildar, Abu Road and Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Abu Road, the District Collector, Sirohi again issued yet another letter and asked to submit the clear factual report in regard to grant permission of commercial construction as sought by earlier letter dated 16.7.2020 (Annexure-12). Upon which, the respondent Municipal Council, Abu Road issued a reminder letter vide dated 29.10.2020 (Annexure-16) to the letter dated 21.8.2020 (Annexure-13) and asked to submit requisite documents immediately. Again a reminder vide dated 4.2.2021 (Annexure-17) to his letters dated 21.8.2020 (Annexure-13) and 29.10.2020 (Annexure-16) was issued by the Municipal Council, Abu Road and asked respondent Bhakati Hardya Sharan to submit the requisite documents. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the private respondent has dug a pit on land in question by way of demolishing the old construction however, despite the service of notice dated 17.06.2019, the pit has not yet been filled by him and the residents of ward No.10 and the public at large are facing grave difficulty as on account of the open pit, lives of the public at large is in danger. The respondent Municipal Council had also issued a notice dated 17.05.2019 (Annexure-7) to the private respondent while informing him that the application submitted by the private respondent for construction over the plot admeasuring 33 sq fts x 36 sq fts= 1188 sq fts whereas the actual measurement of the land is 28 sq.fts x 45 sq.fts = 1260 sq. fts while also mentioning in the stay notices that the application is not for the land in question. Learned counsel further submitted that the Municipal Council has proceeded illegally permitting construction in favor of the private respondent over the land in question as the private respondent is not having any right, title in the land in question. He also submitted that the respondents are well aware of the pendency of the present writ petition however, despite such knowledge had proceeded to grant the permission in favor of the respondent for construction on the said land in question vide order dated 04.08.2022 9. He also submitted that the respondents are well aware of the pendency of the present writ petition however, despite such knowledge had proceeded to grant the permission in favor of the respondent for construction on the said land in question vide order dated 04.08.2022 9. Learned counsel for the respondents jointly raised a preliminary objection that the present writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that under Section 194(12) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter The Act of 2009) an efficacious, alternative statutory remedy of filing appeal is available to the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the respondent No.6 is a Public Trust registered under the Public Trust Act, 1959 on 12.02.1988 with the office of Assistant Commissioner, Dev Sthan Department bearing registration No.1/88 in the name of Bhakati Hardya Sharan,Ramji Mandir Trust, Abu Road, Sirohi and a Will dated 19.10.1963 was executed by the Mahant of Respondent-Trust transfering immovable/moveable properties including Patta No.537 dated 29.09.1943 in the name of Bai Ummed (Umiya Devi). 11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that upon the application submitted by respondent No.5, the status report from respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 was sought by the Additional Collector. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 also submitted that the concerned Engineer was directed to prepare a factual report of the land in question in respect of the construction as requested by the private respondent whereupon, the said inspection report (Annexure R/2) submitted while mentioning in it that the plot in question was registered in the name of Ramji Mandir Trust, Abu Road, Sirohi in the records of Municipality and the Devsthan Department with a specific advice that since the area is a commercial area thus, the permission of construction can be given. Learned counsel for the respondents jointly submitted that again the said inspection report was prepared by the Assistant Town Planner (Annexure R/3) in which it was opined that the construction permission can be given to the respondent No.5. They further submitted that thereafter on 28.07.2022, it was resolved that the matter may be decided by the Empowered Committee and on 29.07.2022, the members of Empowered Committee took a unanimous decision of granting permission to the private respondent over the land in question. 12. They further submitted that thereafter on 28.07.2022, it was resolved that the matter may be decided by the Empowered Committee and on 29.07.2022, the members of Empowered Committee took a unanimous decision of granting permission to the private respondent over the land in question. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 further submitted that thereafter, a resolution dated 29.07.2022 was passed by the Empowered Committee granting permission to respondent No.5 for construction and the deposition of the requisite charges on 12.08.2022. He further submitted that the petitioner has not submitted any document showing his claim over the land in question and has also not shown the prejudice that would be caused to him upon such construction. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 further submitted that due process of law has been adopted while granting permission to respondent No.5 to raise the construction on the land in question. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 also submitted that the decision of Empowered Committee is at par with the resolution of the Board as laid down under Section 194 of the Act of 2009 and thus, such decision can be challenged by way of filing a review petition under Section 327 of the Act of 2009. He further submitted that on the day when the Empowered Committee resolved to grant permission to the private respondent for raising the construction i.e. on 01.08.2022 (Annexure-R/4) there was no interim order operating for the said land in question and the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have proceeded to grant the permission of construction in favor of the private respondent despite an interim order operating in favor of the petitioner is absolutely false and frivolous and the interim order was granted by this Court on 13.03.2023. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 also submitted that the petitioner’s son namely Himanshu Garg filed an appeal under Section 194(12) of the Act of 2009 before the Deputy Director, Local self Department, Jodhpur challenging the order dated 06.04.2021 and the appeal was decided vide order dated 07.07.2021 (Annexure-25) while directing the Municipal Corporation to decide the matter afresh while affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 further submitted that thereafter the petitioner who is the father of Mr. Himanshu Garg has preferred the present writ petition despite having knowledge of the provision of alternative remedy available to him. 14. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 further submitted that thereafter the petitioner who is the father of Mr. Himanshu Garg has preferred the present writ petition despite having knowledge of the provision of alternative remedy available to him. 14. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submitted that the land in question vests with the private respondent No.6 as through its predecessor in title and the patta was issued in favor of Gopi Ram and Moti Jamna Lal s/o Gopi Ram and thereafter Gopi Ram i.e. Shanti Lal gifted the land in question to the respondent Trust in the year 1945. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition as the dispute in regard to the land in question is pending as the son of Shantilal Shri Bhagwan has filed a civil suit against respondent No.6 while praying that the land in question belongs to Shri Bhagwan and the temporary injunction application was rejected by the Court below against which an appeal was preferred which came to be dismissed by the Appellate Court on 31.10.2022 (Annexure-R/6/3) against which a writ petition was filed being SBCWP No.16537/2022 and the same is pending consideration. He further submitted that upon permission being granted to it after adopting due procedure of law the said construction is being raised in accordance with law on the said land in question. He also submitted that upon such permission being granted a huge expenditure has incurred as the construction has been raised up to three floors (G+2). 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 16. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming the land in question to be his however not a single document has been placed on record to substantiate the said claim. Thus, this Court is of firm opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish before this Court the locus standi to file the present writ petition and further the nature of right that would be prejudiced if the construction is raised on the said land in question by the respondent No.6. Thus, this Court is of firm opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish before this Court the locus standi to file the present writ petition and further the nature of right that would be prejudiced if the construction is raised on the said land in question by the respondent No.6. It is also seen from the record placed that the respondent No.6 was granted permission by the Empowered Committee on 12.08.2022 for raising construction and the writ petition was filed on 03.03.2021 thus, the petitioner in the present writ petition has not challenged the order dated 12.08.2022 passed by the Empowered Committee. Thus, the scope of the prayers cannot be enlarged by the petitioner particularly where the impugned order dated 12.08.2022 is not a subject matter of the present writ petition. The petitioner has also an efficacious alternative, statutory remedy available under the Act of 2009, and further the petitioner has utterly failed to show the special circumstances under which the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be invoked by this Court for granting indulgence in the present writ petition. 17. The petitioner’s contention is devoid of merit that the Empowered Committee despite having knowledge of the present writ petition had proceeded to grant permission vide order dated 12.08.2022 in favor of respondent No.6 for raising construction on the land in dispute as there was no interim order operating in favor of the petitioner at that time. This Court granted the interim order on 13.03.2023 and thus, the respondent had all authority and power to examine the case and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 18. In view of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 19. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.