Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur challenging the order dt. 26.11.2001 (Annex.1) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur by which the order passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur on 11.05.2001 in the proceedings intiated under Sec. 203 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter, “the Act”) against respondent No. 3 was set-aside.

2. According to the facts disclosed in the petition, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur issued notice under Sec. 203 of the Act against respondent No. 3 on 17.11.2000 and 19.03.2001 for removal of unauthorized occupation of the municipal land. The order passed by the Commissioner on 11.05.2001 was challenged by respondent No.3 by way of filing revision petition under Sec. 300 of the Act before the Divisional Commissioner,Jodhpure. Vide order dt. 11.05.2001 whereby the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur while treating the land in question as encorachment passed an order for removing the said encroachment from the government road. The Municipal Corporation has challenged the order of the Divisional Commissioner mainly on the following grounds:

I. that the lease amount was not deposited by respondent No. 3, therefore, the lease automatically stood terminated and the petitioner is required to remove the unauthorized occupation over the petitioner’s land and according to petitioner the learned Divisional Commissioner has committed error while saying that without cancellation of the lease no eviction or removal from alleged unauthorized occupation could be done.

II. that the Divisional Commissioner wholly misunderstood the legal proposition inasmuch as the Corporation need not approach any Court for getting the lease-deed cancelled because the Corporation itself is competent to remove the unauthorized occupation when after notice the situpulated rent was not deposited by respondent No. 3, therefore, the Divisional Commissioner has committed error in quashing order dt. 11.05.2001. It is also stated in ground No. 2 of the petition that initially the lease was granted on 01.12.1952 for Rs. 5/- per month; and, thereafter, law was enacted for allotment of the site for petrol-pump and rules have been framed thereunder.

3. According to the petitioner, after coming into force of the relevant rules, the earlier lease deeds automatically stood as deemed to have been cancelled and respondent No. 3 ought to have applied for determination of the lease amount as per the Schedule appended to the rules for allotment of land for petrol-pump. The contention of the petitioner is that, according to the rules, the Divisional Commissioner was under obligation to decide the matter in view of the enactment of the rules but the authority has committed grave error of law by allowing the revision petition and ignoring the law.

4. No other ground has been taken by the petitioner in the writ petition for challenging the impugned order dt. 26.11.2001 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur.

5. After issuing notice, reply was filed by respondent No. 3 while raising certain preliminary objections. The first preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent No.3 that the petitioner has not produced on record any resolution taken by the Municipal Corporation taking decision to file the present writ petition against the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur. Secondly, it is contended that the writ petition is not properly constituted because before the Divisional Commissioner, the State, Municipal Corporation and Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. City Sub-Division, Jodhpur were party respondents. However, in the present writ petition the State has been impleaded as party respondent through the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur. Thirdly, objection has been raised to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. It is submitted even after filing the writ petition, no attempt wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document