1989 Supreme(Raj) 826
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Milap Chandra Jain, J.
Mangilal - Appellant
Versus
Nagar Palika, Bilara and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 594 of 1987.
Decided On : 15-09-1989
Rule 23(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974, requires that strips of land be auctioned if two or more persons are interested in them.
Headnote:
PUBLIC STREET - SALE OF STRIP OF LAND - RAJASTHAN MUNICIPALITIES (DISPOSAL OF URBAN LAND) RULES, 1974 - RULE 23(2) - INTERPRETATION - INTERESTED PERSONS - AUCTION - NECESSITY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the Nagar Palika and defendant-non-petitioner from selling and occupying a disputed land, respectively. The plaintiff claimed that the land was a public street, and its sale by private negotiation was illegal. The trial court and the appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the lower courts had ignored material documents on record, including sale deeds, orders, and letters, which showed that the disputed land was a part of a lane and not a strip of land. The court also held that even if the land was considered a strip of land, it could not be sold by private negotiation and should have been auctioned as required by Rule 23(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974.
Issues: 1. Whether the disputed land was a public street or a strip of land. 2. Whether the sale of the disputed land by private negotiation was legal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the lower courts had erred in finding that the disputed land was a strip of land and not a public street. The court relied on various documents on record, including sale deeds, orders, and letters, which showed that the land was a part of a lane. 2. The court also held that even if the land was considered a strip of land, it could not be sold by private negotiation. Rule 23(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974, required that strips of land be auctioned if two or more persons were interested in them. In this case, the plaintiff had expressed interest in the land, and therefore, it should have been auctioned.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the orders of the lower courts, and restrained the Nagar Palika and the defendant-non-petitioner from selling and occupying the disputed land, respectively, until the decision of the suit.
JUDGMENT
1. - This revision petition has been filed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge No. 1. Jodhpur Nagar Palika dated September 26, 1987 by which he has dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff-petitioner and confirmed the order of the Munsif, Bilara dated November 11,1984, dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioner moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. praying that the defendant Nagar Palika, Bilara be retrained free selling the disputed land to the defendant-non-petitioner No. 2 Pemaram. The facts giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.
2. The plaintiff-petitioner's case is that the house of the parties are situated in the town of Bilara, a lane exists adjacent to their houses, the defendant Pemaram applied for the purchase of a part of it alleging that it is a strip of land, the defendant No. 1, Nagar Palika, Bilara has passed an order for its sale, their windows, ventilaters and doors open towards it and the effluent of the houses also falls there. It has been prayed in the plaint that the Nagar Palika, Bilara be restrained through permanent injunction from executing the sale-deed in respect of a part of the land of the lane and getting it registered and the defendant-non-petitioner Pemaram be restrained from occupying it Along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. was moved. The defendant Pemaram only filed, his reply seriously opposing it. He averred in it that the disputed land is not a part of the public street but it is a part of the ship of land. After hearing the parties, the learned Munsiff dismissed the application. The plaintiff petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that the learned lower courts have acted illegally and with material irregularity in holding that the disputed land is not a part of the public street but it is a part of the strip of land. He also contended that the lower courts have ignored various documents on record and their findings are based on surmises and conjectures. He further contended that even if the disputed land is held to be a part of strip of land, it could not be sold by private negotiation and it can be sold through auction as required under Rule 23, Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter to be called 'the Rules'). He relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Manak Chand v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Special Appeal No. 201/87 D/- 7.9.1987 (Raj).
4. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-non-petitioner No.2 Pemaram that both the lower Court have given concurrent findings that the disputed land is a part of the strip of land and not a part of the public street This Court sitting in revision has no jurisdiction to interfere with there findings of fact He relied upon A.I.R. 1986 S.C 153, A.I.R. 1986 S.C 446, A.I.R. 1973 S.C 76, 1988 R.L.W 374, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2379, AIR 1984 S.C 1894. He further contended that it is not the case of the plaintiff-petitioners that the disputed land should have been auctioned as required by Rule Section 23 of the Rules.
5. There is a great force in the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that the learned lower Courts have ignored the various documents on record. The photostat copy of the sale-deed, paper No.11C/2, of the house of the defendant No.4 Pemaram shows that to the north of his house a lane exists and not a strip of land. The certified copy of the order, paper No.C7/2, by which the sale of the disputed land in favour of the defendant No.4 Pemaram has been sanctioned clearly recites in the end that it is a part of a lane It does not say that this is a part of ship of land. The certified copy of the letter, paper No. C 7/4, written by the chairman, Nagarpalika, Bilara to the Assistant Director, Local Bodies, Jodhpur another the disputed land as a part of a
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
