JUDGMENT :

1. Though the arguments in the instant petitions were heard separately and the judgment was reserved on different dates, but since the instant petitions involve a common controversy, though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.

1.1. For the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10570/2023, while treating the same as a lead case.

1.2. The prayer clauses read as under:

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and:

1. The notice impugned dated 18.07.2023 (Annex.6) issued by the Municipal Board, Nokha, Bikaner may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

2. Any consequential order passed in pursuance to the notice dated 18.07.2023 (Annex.6) during filing of the instant writ petition may also be quashed.

3. Any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble High Court deems just and proper may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners, are that a land measuring 2400 square yards situated behind Mangal Palace (Cinema Talkies), Nokha, Bikaner was sold by one Mehardeen to Rajkumar (son of petitioner-Bannaram) through agreement dated 31.08.2018; whereafter Rajkumar expired and the land in question came in possession of the petitioners, as legal heirs.

2.1. Thereafter, the petitioners applied for issuance of patta of the land in question under the Prashashan Shahron Ke Sang Scheme, whereupon the respondent issued a notice dated 11.10.2022 to the petitioners calling upon to deposit the conversion fees, which was accordingly deposited by the petitioners. Thereafter, a free hold patta was issued by the respondent on 30.11.2022 to the petitioners and the same was registered in the Office of Sub-Register concerned on the same day.

2.2. Subsequently, the respondent issued a notice dated

18.07.2023 to the previous owner i.e. Mehardeen and stated that certain private persons raised objections regarding the land in question and the petitioners were also called upon to produce the original relevant documents of the land in question. The petitioners submitted a reply to the said notice. The decision is awaited by the authority thereafter.

3. In Writ petitions no. 11730/2023, 16424/2022 & 12522/2023, it is revealed that the respondent issued the notice to the petitioners seeking production of the original patta and thereafter the respondent passed the impugned order of cancellation of the patta in question under Section 73-B of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2009’).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent authority issued the patta to the petitioners in respect of the land in question and the same was registered before the competent authority, and thereafter, reviewing of the same by notice/cancellation thereof is highly illegal and in violation of the provisions of law.

4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that as per Section 73 of the Act of 2009, the power of re-examination or calling of record, in respect of lease granted by the Municipality does not lie with the Municipality, which issued the patta, rather the same lies with the government. Therefore, the patta issued by the respondent cannot be reviewed (notice/cancellation) by the same authority respondent.

4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent not only reviewed the matter regarding the patta in question but also exceeded its jurisdiction and cancelled the patta in question in some of the matters, which is not permissible in the eye of law because only a Civil Court is having jurisdiction to cancel a registered patta.

4.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the patta in question was issued by the respondent after considering all the asp