Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Heera Devi Tiwari – Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Board, Nokha and Others – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8286 of 2016
Decided On : 26-04-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226, 227 - Agreement to sale - Regularize land - Possession of land - An appropriate writ, order or direction writ petition filed by petitioner may kindly be allowed – Petitioner is an encroacher and that agreement to sale is not a valid document as same is not registered - Para 23.
Finding of the Court :
Court finds that piece of land, which vests with one Shrilal, has already been regularized by respondents and land of petitioner, which was a part of land of one Shrilal, as same was given away to petitioner by way of an agreement to sale, has been denied regularization - Court observes that fact that petitioner is having land in dispute by way of agreement to sale from one Shri Shrilal was well within knowledge of respondents as well as location of land, for which regularization has been sought by petitioner - Respondent authorities have never raised any objection that land of petitioner is falling in National Highway or GREF or petitioner has encroached upon land and neither any objection was raised that agreement to sale was not a valid document - Rather, after examination of complete facts and circumstances, Chairman, Municipal Board stated that if land of petitioner is regularized, then Municipal Board shall have no objection to it - Impugned orders denying regularization of her land are quashed and set aside.
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:
(b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction impugned action on the part of the respondent authorities in rejecting the case of the petitioner for regularization of land in dispute may kindly be held illegal and accordingly, impugned order dated 15.06.2016 (Annex.19) passed by the respondent No. 3-Director, Local Self Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur as well as decision dated 13.11.2014 (Annx.13) taken upon Agenda No. 2 in the meeting of Executive Committee of the respondent-Municipal Board may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(c) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent-Municipal Board, Nokha may kindly be directed to restore the possession of the petitioner and thereafter, regularize the land in dispute in the name of the petitioner in light of the consent given by them in their written submission (Ann.11) filed before the respondent No. 3 forthwith.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that one Shri Srilal Tiwari was allotted a land ad measuring 711 sq. ft. situated near Navli Gate, Nokha, District Bikaner prior to the year 1973 on rent by the respondent-Municipal Board and possession of the same was also given and he was running his shop there. On 21.06.1991, the respondent-Municipal Board, without any notice to the allottee, dispossessed him. Thereafter, when the matter came to the knowledge of the Local Self Department, the respondent No. 3 made a communication dated 29.07.1991 (Annex.1) to the Chairman, Municipal Board, Nokha and directed him to restore the dispossessed persons on the same place or any nearby appropriate place. However, in spite of the aforesaid, the original allottee (Shri Srilal Tiwari) was not given appropriate place, therefore, he instituted a civil suit against the respondent-Municipal Board wherein a compromise dated 10.02.1995 (Anne.2) was arrived at between the parties and it was agreed upon to allot 684 sq. ft. land in place of 711 sq. ft. in the southern side of Booking Room situated at Navli Gate and further ensured to complete the regularization proceedings and the suit was decreed accordingly vide order dated 10.02.1993.
3. In pursuance of the said compromise, the respondent-Municipal Board directed the Munior Engineer to give possession of 38’ x 18’ = 684 sq. ft. land to the original allottee as per Condition No. 1 of the compromise after leaving 15 ft. land of southern side of Booking Room vide order dated 29.04.1995. Pursuant to the order aforesaid, the possession of the land was given to the original allottee (Shri Srilal Tiwari).
4. Thereafter, the original allottee (Shri Srilal Tiwari) sold 342 sq. ft. of the land out of the total 684 sq. ft. land to the petitioner through agreement to sale dated 08.06.1995 for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- and possession was also handed over to him. After purchase of the said land, the petitioner invested huge amount to develop the land and constructed a shop thereon.
5. Thereafter, the original allottee (Shri Srilal Tiwari) and the petitioner applied for regularization of their respective pieces of land, in pursuance whereof, the respondent-Municipal Board regularized the possession of 270 sq. ft. out of 342 sq. ft. land of the original allottee (Shri Srilal Tiwari), however, possession of the petitioner was not regularized and the matter was pending before the respondent No. 3. However, in spite of this fact, the respondent-Municipal Board started threatening the petitioner for demolishing here construction. In such situation, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being SBCWP No. 7037/2003, which came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2003 directing the respondent No. 3 to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months and
Transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed).
The court upheld the validity of the impugned order under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, confirming that it was neither arbitrary nor perverse, and emphasized adherence to statutory procedure....
Regularization of unauthorized plots should not be denied when no ownership dispute affects the property; reliance on unrelated ongoing litigation is improper under applicable rules.
The court emphasized the importance of following proper procedure and eligibility criteria in the regularization process under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959.
The court ruled that an unregistered lease does not confer rights, and amendments changing the nature of a petition are impermissible if no enforceable rights exist.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the authorities to consider a petitioner's claim for regularization and the readiness of the petitioner to pay the premium.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
