MODI, J.—This is a writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution against an order of the Minister of Local Self Government Department of our State dated the 17th Aprils 1957, passed under sec. 4 of the Rajasthan City Municipal Appeals (Regulation) Act, 1950, (Act No. 3 of 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1950). This application was originally allowed by a bench of this Court (Bapna Ag., C.J. and Modi J.) by an order dated the 7th November, 1958, on the ground that the State Government had no jurisdiction to pass the order under challenge. The respondent State of Rajasthan then obtained special leave for appeal to the Supreme Court and by its judgment dated the 16th September, 1964 (Civil Appeal No.245 of 1962), the interpretation put by this Court on the proviso to Sec. 4 of the Act of 1950 was held to be erroneous and it was further held that a revision lay to the Government against the order of the municipal authority concerned thereunder and the case has been remanded to this Court for being disposed of on the other points arising in the case. This is how the case has come before us today.

2. The material facts in so far as they are necessary for the decision of this writ application may be stated very shortly. The petitioner Mrs. Leela Jain being the owner of a plot of land in Ashok Nagar in the city of Jaipur, applied to the Municipal Council for permission to build on it. Respondent No. 3 D.D. Goswami is her neighbour. The petitioner was permitted to construct on her plot of land according to certain plan submitted by her and approved by the municipal council but it appears that during the course of construction, she made certain deviations therefrom by which respondent No. 3 felt aggrieved and it is out of this discord that the present litigation has arisen. The said respondent made a revision to the Municipal Council complaining against the deviations as a result of which an inquiry was made and it was found that the petitioner had made certain departures from the approved plan. On the 19th September, 1955, the President of the Municipal Council directed the petitioner to stop the construction, but it is alleged that she paid no heed to that direction. Consequently, action was contemplated against her under S. 210 of the City of Jaipur Municipal Act, 1943, which provides that whenever under the provisions of the Act, any work is required to be executed by the owner or occupier of any building or land and default is made in the execution thereof, the Municipal Board may cause such work to be executed and the expenses thereby incurred shall be paid to it by the person by whom such work ought to have been executed and shall be recoverable according to the procedure laid down in Chapter 8 of the Act. On the 21th September, 1956, the Municipal Overseer reported that the objectionable construction had been completed whereupon the President, Munci-pal Council directed action to be taken under S. 210 of the aforesaid Act. In the meantime the petitioner through her lawyer prayed to the Municipal Council that the case be compounded by imposition of a reasonable penalty. Consequently on the 24th October, 1956, the President of the Council inspected the site and finally recorded the following orders —

"I have inspected the site and seen the record of the case as well. The applicant Shrimati Leela Devi has of course made some alterations in the original plan submitted by her. The cons-tructions, however, do not infringe any bye-law regarding construction. She has altered the plan without permission for which she has applied for compounding on 7.8.56. The Municipal Council can enforce the regulations of the Urban Improvement Board or not, is a doubtful matter. The case be therefore, compounded for Rs. 101/- (one hundred one) only. The party be informed and compound money be realised."

The petitioners case is that she had deposited the compensation fee of Rs. 101/-with the Municipal Council, Jaipur and this fact stands a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document