Illegal construction without due permission is a violation of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, Section 194.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs :

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be accepted and-

(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 10.08.2023 (Annexure-10), passed by the respondent No.1 may kindly be quashed & set-aside;

(ii) In alternate, the petitioner’s case may kindly be remanded back before the Board or Committee for disposal of the same as per the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Municipalities (Compounding and Compromising of Offences) Rules, 1966 and Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, as remanded in the case of Sri Niwas Agarwal & Ors. versus Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bikaner, Appeal No.-F-53 (2705) NIG/DLB /2022 vide order dated 16.12.2022 (Annexure-11).

(iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem just fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before by the learned counsel of the petitioner, are that the petitioner had purchased land admeasuring 14250 square feet situated at Toliyasar, Opposite Bheru Ji Ka Mandir, Koyla Gali, Binani Building, Bikaner through the various registered sale deeds, whereafter, a shopping centre was constructed on the land in question.

2.1. The respondent-Municipal Corporation, Bikaner issued a notice dated 18.03.2021 to the petitioner under the Section 194 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2009’) stating therein that the petitioner had constructed the building without due permission, and thus, directed the petitioner to remain present before the concerned authority within seven days along with the relevant documents. The petitioner filed a reply to the said notice on 25.03.2021.

2.2. Thereafter, the respondents vide order dated 01.04.2021, issued a direction to the petitioner to stop the construction work with immediate effect and remove the illegal construction within 15 days. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.04.2021, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 194 (12) of the Act of 2009 before the respondent no.1-Director-cum-Special Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Jaipur, whereupon the respondent no. 1 had passed an interim order dated 16.04.2021 in favour of the petitioner.

2.3. Subsequently, the respondent no.1, after filing of reply to the appeal, vide order dated 21.12.2021 vacated interim order dated 16.04.2021. Aggrieved by the said order dated 21.12.2021, the petitioner preferred a writ petition (S.B.C.W.P. No. 1065/2022) before this Hon’ble Court, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court had passed the following interim order on 24.01.2022:

“1. Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by way of impugned order dated 20.12.2021, the Secretary of the local self government has vacated the earlier interim order dated 16.04.2021, passed in petitioner’s case, without assigning any reason.

2. Matter requires consideration.

3. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also, returnable within six weeks.

4. Meanwhile, effect and operation of order dated 20.12.2021, shall remain stayed.

5. Needless to observe that during the pendency of the writ petition, if the appeal filed by the petitioner is decided, then, petitioner’s right shall be governed by the final order to be passed in the appeal, subject of-course to petitioner’s right of laying challenge to such final order.”

2.4 Thereafter, the respondent no.1 vide the impugned order dated 10.08.2023 dismissed the aforementioned appeal of the petitioner. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as such, no illegal construction work was carried out by the petitioner, rather only