Sandeep Mehta, J.

The instant bunch of writ petitions involves common question of facts and law and is thus being decided together by this single order.

2. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred to challenge individual identical show cause notices dated 10.10.2013 issued to the petitioners by the Municipal Council, Bhilwara calling upon the petitioners to remove the encroachments in form of shops allegedly made by the petitioners on the land owned by a public trust named Sarvajanik Sampati Trust, Bhilwara.

3. The petitioners are doing business for the last nearly 50 years at the shops in question which they claim as rented out to them/their predecessors in title by the Trust. The trust in question was created in the year 1940 during the rule of the erstwhile State of Mewar and was also registered under the Societies Registration Act. After coming into force of the Registration Public Trust Act, 1959, the trust was re-registered thereunder. The trust runs a school in the name of Gopal Chhatrawas. The petitioners claim that in order to meet the expenses of the Gopal Chhatrawas, the trust constructed the shops in question and rented them out to the petitioners. The petitioners are regularly paying the rent of the shops to the trust. The petitioners claim that in the year 1968, some of the shops were extended upto the main road by covering a naala falling in between and the said extension was regularised vide order dated 15.04.1968. However, to their utter surprise and detriment of the petitioners, the Municipal Council, Bhilwara issued them the impugned notices in identical terms directing them to remove the encroachments allegedly made by the petitioners on public trust property. These notices are assailed in this bunch of writ petitions. The language of the verbatim proforma notices is relevant for deciding the controversy and is thus being reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference:

^^dk;kZy; uxj ifj”kn HkhyokM+k ¼jkt-½

Øekad % uiHkh@vfrØe.k@10@18166

fnukad 10-10-2013

uksfVl

cuke -----------------

---------------------------

---------------------------

fo”k;& ljdkj@ifj”kn Hkwfe ij vki }kjk fd;s tk jgs vfrØe.k ds lEcU/k esaA

fofnr jgs fd vkius fcuk fdlh vf/kdkj ds fcuk Lohd`fr ifj”kn Hkwfe@QqVikFk@lM+d

19-6^ X 33^ ij uktk;t dCtk dj fuEu izdkj ls vfrØe.k dj fy;k gS %&

vki }kjk xksiky Nk=kokl dh laLFkkfud mi;ksx dh Hkwfe ij vki }kjk fcuk ifj”kn vuqefr 19-6^ X 33^ esa nqdku fuekZ.k dj QeZ ¼vtesjk esMhdy LVksj½ nokbZ;ka cspus dk O;olk; dj jgs gaS tks voS/k gksdj vfrØe.k gSA

vkidk mDr d`R; jktLFkku uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e] 2009 dks /kkjk 245 ds varxZr vijk/k gSA

vkidks ,rn~ }kjk funsZf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd bl lwpuk i= dh izkfIr ls 2 fnu fnol dh vof/k esa vki mDr vfrØe.k gVk dj fyf[kr esa ifj”kn dks voxr djkosaA

KkRo; jgs fd mDr funsZ’kksa dh vuqikyuk ugha djus ij ifj”kn }kjk vkids fo:) mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 245¼1½ ds varxZr fof/kd dk;Zokgh dh tkosxhA ftlds varxZr vfrØe.k /oLr djus] ekSds ij iM+s eky esVsfj;y tCr djus rFkk vfHk;kstu djus ij vkidks rhu o”kZ rd dk dkjkokl ,oa 50000@& ¼ipkl gtkj½ rd tqekZuk Hkh fd;k tk ldrk gSA

uksfVl vkt esjs gLrk{kj ,oa dk;kZy; eqgj ls izpfyr dj rkfeyu tkjh fd;k x;kA

uksV& mDr Hkw&Hkkx lacaf/k LokfeRo izek.k&i= ,oa fuekZ.k Lohd`fr gks rks mDr vof/k esa is’k djsaA

fnukad & 10-10-2013

vk;qDr

uxj ifj”kn] HkhyokM+k**

4. It is claimed in these writ petitions that as the shops in question are owned by the public trust were lawfully rented out to the petitioners, the Municipal Council has no jurisdiction to issue notice and call upon the petitioners to evict the premises in question under Section 245 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act which is the only provision by which, the Municipal body can undertake an exercise of removal of possession/encroachment.

5. The provision reads as below:

245. Encroachment or obstruction upon public land.-

(1) Whoever makes any encroachment in any land or space not being private property, whether such land or space belongs to or vests in