The court emphasized the importance of following proper procedure and eligibility criteria in the regularization process under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959.

JUDGMENT :

1. The matter pertains to the year 1999, thus, was listed under the category “Oldest Cases for Early Disposal”.

2. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, prayed that record of the case may be called for an by an appropriate writ, order or direction:

1. impugned order dated 29.5.1998 may be quashed and set aside,

2. respondent no.2 may be restrained from proceeding to auction the land in question and the petitioner may be allowed to continue with the possession.

3. During the pendency of the writ petition if any action pursuant to order dated 29.5.98 may be stayed.

4. Any other relief which this Hon’ble court deems fir may be granted in favour of petitioner.

4. Writ petition may be allowed with costs.”

3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court, by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner was having a land situated in Village Khudala in the District of Pali. The petitioner applied for regularization of his possession over the land in question before the respondent no.2-Municipal Board, whereupon, the respondent no.2-Municipal Board drew a note-sheet regarding the permission for regularization of the petitioner over the land in question on 06.07.1992; thereafter, the inspection of the land in question for that purpose was conducted, whereupon the permission for regularization was granted on 07.07.1992.

3.1 Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to deposit the charges for the said regularization to the tune of Rs. 3600/-, which was deposited vide receipt dated 27.07.1992, and the sale deed dated 30.07.1992 was executed in favour of the petitioner.

3.2. The private respondents filed a revision petition (registered as Revision No. 38/94) under Section 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 before the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur against the aforesaid regularization made in favour of the petitioner. The learned Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 29.05.1998 allowed the said revision and quashed the regularization order dated 07.07.1992 and cancelled deposition in question so made vide receipt dated 27.07.1992 and also directed the Executive Officer to sell the land in question through auction, if no interim order passed by any other Court was in operation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in possession of the land in question since time immemorial and the said possession was also proved vide order 09.05.1973, whereby the petitioner was declared to be in possession of the land in question prior to the year 1969.

4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that after the inspection on 07.07.1992 of the land in question by all the members of the Board, regularization of the land in question was made in favour of the petitioner, and sale deed was also executed in his favour. Thus, as per learned counsel, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Divisional Commission is not justified in law.

4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land in question is still in currency and thus, the petitioner is the rightful owner of the land in question.

4.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by Coordinate Benches of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Gulam Jilanee Vs. Director of Local Self Government Department & Ors. 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 1974 and Kamla Devi Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 1351.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is already having properties in the Pali District, and therefore, he does not fall under the category meant for the allotment in question.

5.1. It was further submitted that the regularization in question was illegally made in favour of th