The alteration of a scheme under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 does not require the approval of the Chief Town Planner if it does not fall under Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal) Rules, 1954, and consultation with the Senior Town Planner in the meeting where the decision to auction the land was taken satisfies the requirement of consultation under Rule 16 of the Rules.

1. - This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of writ of prohibition for restraining respondent No. I the Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner (for short the UIT here in after) from proceeding with the proposed auction in pursuance of Annexure 4.

2. The averments in the writ petition are that the petitioner has a shop in the India Market in front of the P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner. That the scheme of that market was approved by the U.I.T. and put in execution. That, space for parking was earmarked for the utility of the shopkeepers and the visitors of the market and it was being soused for a longtime. That the U.I.T. thereafter proposed to auction that land earmarked for the parking and issued Notice Annexure-4. which has caused grievance to the petitioner and those for whose use the land was reserved.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that once a scheme has been sanctioned under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act' here in after) it cannot be altered without the previous sanction of the Government, the Map relating to the scheme, in which the land in dispute was earmarked for parking, was not supplied to the petitioner despite his depositing the requisite fee. That every scheme by the U.I.T. has to be approved by the Town planner under Rules 9 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement trust (Disposal) Rules, 1954 (for short 'the Rules' here in question and therefore, no change can be affected to the approved scheme in the India Market. That, the demand of Notice Annexeure-3 was not considered by the Urban Improvement Trust.

4. Notice was issued to the respondents. Written reply has been filed on behalf of the U.I.T. It has been stated that with a view to remove to do away with the nuisance and unhealthy of the scheme constructed India Market and let out the shops constructed by the U.I.T. to the erstwhile unauthorised occupants with a view to regularly settle them. It has been admitted that there was a provision of a small space of 20' X 30' to be used of parking but the scheme was not a statutory scheme. That representations such as Annexures R/3, R/4 and R/5 were received and it was disclosed that the occupant of shop No. 22 and a few others were using the land reserved as parking and it was not being utilised for the purpose it was earmarked. That the earmarked parking space led to unauthorised encroachment by the persons having 'Thelas' and 'Khomchas' In that situation, the U.I.T. resolved to auction the land for the construction of shops No. 23 24 and 25 that, the meeting in which the proposed alteration was decided was attended by the Senior town Planner and as such there arises no question of violation of any Rule.

5. There is no dispute on the point that the petitioner has a shop in the India Market and the land which is now stated to have been auctioned for the construction of Shops No. 23, 24 and 25 Verandah in front of them has been reserved for Scooter parking in the initial India Market Scheme. Annexure R/2 is the Map. In that Map while earmarking the proposed land for shops, the original situation i.e. earmarking for Scooters parking has been shown.

6. Mr. Bhagwati Prasad vehemently contended that there is no approval, or sanction by the Town planner for this alteration in the scheme and therefore, the auction of the land is illegal. It has also been urged that if that space earmarked for parking is not kept as such it will create great hardship for the occupants of the shops in the market and the visitors thereto.

7. Mr. D.S. Shishodia, learned counsel for the U.I.T referred to Annexure R/l, the resolution passed in the meeting dated October 6, 1986 where at serial No. 2 of resolution there is mention of land near the B.T.M. Hospital. It is important to note that the decision taken in that regard was that in case the and got vacated from the un-authorised occupants is left vacant there would again be unauthorised oc