Order : GANESH RAM MEENA, J. 1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the judgment and decree dated 13.01.1999 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan) [for short ‘the First Appellate Court’] in Civil Appeal No. 39/97, Municipal Council, Sawaimadhopur Vs. M/s. Bansal Traders and to restore the judgment and decree dated 16.07.1997 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Case No.9/92, M/s. Bansal Traders Vs. Municipal Council and to decree the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant throughout the cost. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant filed a civil suit before the trial court stating therein that the plaintiff/appellant has purchased one residential plot No.51, Maharana Pratap Colony, Mantown, Sawaimadhopur in an open auction held on 18.12.1982 and deposited the entire sale amount. It was further stated by the plaintiff/appellant that the ownership and possession of the plot was also handed over to him. After having sought the required permission on 18.01.1984 from the Municipal Council, Sawaimadhopur, the plaintiff/appellant got constructed the residential house as per the approved site plan. It was also stated that the plaintiff/appellant is using the said premises for the residential purpose only. However, the defendant/respondent on false pretext issued a notice dated 21.07.1989 in the Local Newspaper stating therein that the plaintiff/appellant is making use of the residential premises for the commercial activities and same being in violation of Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (for short ‘the Disposal Rules of 1974’) and the defendant /respondent is authorized to take back the possession. It was stated in the plaint that neither the residential house is being used for the commercial activities nor Rule 21 of the Disposal Rules of 1974 is applicable as the plot was not allotted under Rules 17, 18 and 19 of the Disposal Rules, 1974 but it was purchased in an open auction under the provisions of Rule 14 in force at the relevant time. 3. 3. The written statement was filed by the defendant/respondent in which it has been asserted that the plaintiff/appellant has not made the construction as per the approved plan and there is a violation of Rule 21 of the Disposal Rules, 1974. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as six issues, which are quoted as under:- ^^1- vk;k uxj ifj"kn oknh dks fookfnr Hkwfe ls csn[ky djus dh vf/kdkjh gS\ 2- vk;k uxj ifj"kn }kjk oknh dks nh xbZ fuekZ.k Lohd`fr dk mYya?ku djrs gq, oknh }kjk fue.kZ dj oknh us jktLFkku] uxjh; Hkwfe fu"iknu 1974 dh /kkjk 21 dk mYya?ku fd;k gS\ 3- vk;k ekfy;r nkok vf/kd gksus ds dkj.k U;k;ky; gktk dks bl okn dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gS\ 4- vk;k oknh }kjk nkok lafLFkr djus ls iwoZ uxj ifj"kn dks /kkjk 271 jktLFkku uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1959 ds varxZr nks ekg dk uksfVl ugha fn;k x;k vkSj bl vk/kkj ij nkok oknh [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS\ 5- vk;k oknh izfroknh dks LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ds vkns’k ls ikcan djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 6- vuqrks"k\^^ 5. Both the parties led their evidence. 6. The learned trial court vide its judgment dated 16.07.1997 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/appellant and ordered that the defendant/respondent shall not dispossess the plaintiff/appellant from the plot in question. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.07.1997 passed by the learned trial court, the defendant /respondent preferred a civil regular appeal before the First Appellate Court which was registered at No.39/97. The said first appeal was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 13.01.1999 by the learned First Appellate Court and the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant was also dismissed. 8. Against the judgment and decree dated 13.01.1999 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, the plaintiff/appellant has preferred this second appeal. 9. The Court vide its order dated 25.08.2006 while admitting the second appeal, framed the following substantial question of law:- “ Whether , provisions of Rule 21 can be made applicable on a plot which was purchased in open auction and not as per Rule 17 to 19 of Disposal of Property Rules, 1974?” 10. 9. The Court vide its order dated 25.08.2006 while admitting the second appeal, framed the following substantial question of law:- “ Whether , provisions of Rule 21 can be made applicable on a plot which was purchased in open auction and not as per Rule 17 to 19 of Disposal of Property Rules, 1974?” 10. Counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant submitted that the plaintiff/appellant purchased a residential plot No.51, Maharana Pratap Colony, Mantown, Sawaimadhopur after having participated in an open public auction on 18.12.1982 and after depositing the complete amount, sought permission from the defendant/respondent- Municipal Council for construction of the house which was granted on 18.01.1984 and thereafter the residential house was constructed as per the approved plan. Counsel submitted that the defendant/respondent has issued a notice (Ex.P2) under Rule 21 of the Disposal Rules, 1974 observing that the plaintiff/appellant was given the residential plot in an open auction and he is using the same for commercial purposes, which is in violation of Rule 21 of the Disposal Rules, 1974 and the defendant/respondent is the authority to take back the possession of the plot in question. Counsel also submitted that the plaintiff/appellant has purchased the plot in auction and Rule 21 of the Disposal Rules, 1974 is only applicable to the lands/plots which are allotted by the Municipal Council. Counsel further submitted that Rule 21 of the Disposal Rules, 1974 does not speak of the plots which are given in auction. Hence, the proceedings by the defendant/respondent against the plaintiff/appellant under Rule 21 of the Disposal Rules, 1974 are illegal. Counsel further submitted that the learned First Appellate Court has illegally made applicable Rule 21 of the Disposal Rules, 1974 in the case of the present plaintiff/appellant. Counsel also submitted that the learned trial court has rightly decreed the suit. Counsel further submitted that as regards the allegation of using the residential premises for commercial activities, if found proved, after proper inquiry, the defendant/respondent at the most can take action against the plaintiff/appellant only under the provisions of Section 173A of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act of 1959’). Counsel also submitted that there is no power vested with the defendant/respondent to take back the possession of the plot in question. Counsel also submitted that there is no power vested with the defendant/respondent to take back the possession of the plot in question. Counsel further submitted that auction of the plot in question was held under the provisions given in Rule 14 of the Disposal Rules, 1974, which has later-on been deleted. 11. Ms. Muskan Verma, counsel appearing for the defendant/respondent submitted that Rule 21 of the Disposal Rules, 1974 deals with all kinds of cases of plots given by the Municipal Council either by allotment or auction. She further submitted that since the auction was held under the provisions of the Disposal Rules, 1974, it is the only Rule 21 of the Disposal Rules, 1974 which would deal with the case of the plaintiff/appellant. 12. Considered the submissions made by the counsels appearing for the respective parties at Bar and perused the record and the relevant provisions of law. 13. So as to decide the substantial question of law involved in this second appeal as framed by the Court while admitting the appeal on 25.08.2006, certain provisions of the Disposal Rules, 1974 and the Act of 1959 are required to be quoted, which are as under:- “ Rule 2(10) . “Sale or disposal of land” means transfer of lease hold rights only. Rule 8(2): Preparation of Schemes by the Board.- (2) In the Scheme the plots for allotment and sale by auction shall be clearly indicated and the area of such residential plots for allotment shall not exceed 400 sq. yards. Rule 14. Sale of Residential plots through Public Auction.- Residential plots not reserved for allotment shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme under the control and supervision of the Board concerned. (x x x deleted by No. F.3 (2)LSG /83/6799-6348 dt. 22.8.1983) Rule 21. Reversion.- (2) In case the land is not utilized for the purpose for which it has been allotted within a period of two years from the date of allotment after depositing the full cost of plot the land together with the building constructed thereon shall revert to the Board with no claim of compensation. 22.8.1983) Rule 21. Reversion.- (2) In case the land is not utilized for the purpose for which it has been allotted within a period of two years from the date of allotment after depositing the full cost of plot the land together with the building constructed thereon shall revert to the Board with no claim of compensation. Section 173A- Power of the State Government to allow change in the use of land- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any land has been allotted or sold to any person by a municipality or the State Government subject to the condition of restraining its use for a particular purpose, the State Government may, if it is satisfied so to do in public interest, allow the owner or holder of such land to use it for any other purpose other than the purpose for which it was originally allotted or sold, on payment of such conversion charges as may be prescribed. Provided that the rates of conversion charges may be different for different areas and for different purposes. (2) The conversion charges so realized shall be credited to the Consolidated Fund of the State or to the fund of the municipality as may be determined by the State Government. (3) Such charges shall be the first charge on the interest of the person liable in the land the use of which has been changed and shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue.” 14. There are two methods of giving the residential plots by the Local Bodies under the provisions of the Disposal Rules, 1974; one is under Rule 14 i.e. sale of residential plots through public auction which was in effect while the plaintiff/appellant was given the plot in auction and the second one is by way of allotment under the provisions of Rule 17 of the Disposal Rules, 1974. Rule 21 of the Disposal Rules, 1974 under which the defendant/respondent has issued the notice to the plaintiff/appellant deals with the cases where the land has been allotted and not in the matters where the land has been sold by auction. 15. Rule 2(10) of the Disposal Rules, 1974 defines Sale or disposal of land i.e. it means the transfer of lease hold rights only. 16. 15. Rule 2(10) of the Disposal Rules, 1974 defines Sale or disposal of land i.e. it means the transfer of lease hold rights only. 16. Rule 8(2) of the Disposal Rules, 1974 clearly speaks that the Municipal Council shall clearly indicate the area of residential plot to be allotted and sale by auction. Meaning-thereby, the Rule Framers themselves have differentiated in between the residential plots to be given by way of allotment and the residential plots to be put to sale by auction. Section 173A of the Act of 1959 also differentiates between the lands allotted or sold to any person by the Municipality. 17. The afore-mentioned Rules clearly show that the Rule Making Authority itself in Rule 8(2) of the Disposal Rules, 1974 and section 173A of the Act of 1959 has used the words ‘allotment and sale or sold’ which clearly shows that wherever they were intending to make applicable the particular provision of the Act or the Rules for the residential plots allotted or the residential plots sold, they have used both words ‘allotted and sold’ in that provision. But in Rule 21 of the Disposal Rules, 1974, they have used only the words ‘plot allotted’ which clearly goes to show that the Rule Making Authority itself was intending to apply Rule 21 of the Disposal Rules, 1974 only for the plots which were allotted and therefore, this Court can safely held that Rule 21 of the Disposal Rules, 1974 are only applicable to the cases of residential plots which were allotted by the Municipal Council and not to the residential plots which have been given to a person by sale in public auction under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1974. 18 In support of his submissions, learned counsel appearing for the defendant/respondent has relied upon the judgment delivered by this High Court in the case of M/s. Queens Granite Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jaipur Development Authority & Ors., reported in 2000 2 RLW (Raj.) 950. 19. After going through the said judgment, the Court finds that the issue raised therein has no relevancy with the substantial question of law to be answered in this appeal. 20. During the pendency of this appeal, the plaintiff appellant has also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking certain documents on record which includes the letters and orders issued respondent/defendant Municipal Council, Sawaimadhopur. 21. 20. During the pendency of this appeal, the plaintiff appellant has also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for taking certain documents on record which includes the letters and orders issued respondent/defendant Municipal Council, Sawaimadhopur. 21. Looking to the issue involved in the present appeal and the documents enclosed with the application which are also relevant for consideration of the issue, this Court deems just and proper to allow the application. The application is accordingly allowed and the documents enclosed with the application are taken on record. The defendant/respondent-Municipal Council, Sawaimadhopur itself has recommended for withdrawing the proceedings initiated against the plaintiff/appellant under Rule 21 of the Disposal Rules, 1974. The plaintiff/appellant has also placed on record the order dated 23.06.2023 whereby the plot No. 36 in the same Maharanapratap Colony in the name of Smt. Shakuntla Devi was allowed to be converted for the commercial purpose. 22. In view of the discussion made above, the substantial question of law as framed by this Court while admitting the second appeal is decided in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. 23. Accordingly, the second appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 13.01.1999 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan) in Civil Appeal No. 39/97, Municipal Council, Sawaimadhopur Vs. M/s. Bansal Traders is quashed and set aside and the judgment and decree dated 16.07.1997 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur in Civil Case No.9/92, M/s. Bansal Traders Vs. Municipal Council, Sawaimadhopur, is upheld and restored. 24. However, it is made clear that this judgment/decree dated 16.07.1997 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur in Civil Case No.9/92, M/s. Bansal Traders Vs. Municipal Council, Sawaimadhopur, will in no manner curtail and adversely affect the rights of the defendant/respondent-Municipal Council, Sawaimadhopur for taking any action against the plaintiff/appellant in regard to any kind of violation by him by taking recourse to the provisions of law. 25. In view of the judgment passed in the main appeal, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. 26. The Registry is directed to send back record of the case to the concerned Court forthwith.