M.B. SHARMA, J.—The petitioner has challenged the legality and pro-priety of the order Annr. 4 dated July 5, 1988, made by the Director, Local Bodies Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The said order is available at pages 34 and 35 of the paper book of the writ petition and a perusal of which will show that an application under Sec. 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short the Act) was filed before the Director, Local Bodies and the Director Local Bodies in exercise of the powers under Sec. 300 of the Act made an interim order ordering to maintain the status quo and further ordering that no permission to construct should be given on the land in dispute Before we deal with the aforesaid order Annr. 6, it will be useful to give relevant facts.

2. One Mangal Singh, father of the petitioner filed a civil suit in the court of Addl. Munsif Magistrate No. 1 Dholpur for declaration and perpetual injunction against the Municipal Board Dholpur in respect of the land in dispute. The necessity for filing the suit arose as the Municipal Board intend to auction the land in question and in that suit an application for temporary injunction was also filed which was allowed. The suit was contested on behalf of the Municipal Board Dholpur wherein issues were framed and ultimately for a period of 10 years the suit remained pending and it appears that the parties i.e. the father of the petitioner as well as the Municipal Board Dholpur arrived at a compromise and on the basis of compromise a decree was passed wherein it was declared that the land in dispute belongs to the father of the petitioner. The land was also marked by letters Ka Kha Ga Gha and A B C D. It appears that no appeal against the said decree was preferred and the said decree became final.

3. Roshanlal who was not wilfully made the party in the writ petition and was made the party only under the orders of this Court, and now respondent No. 4, filed a suit wherein the petitioner as well as the Municipal Board were arrived as defendants. He claimed that he had purchased the property in dispute from the sons of Liladhar who had purchased the said property in 1939 by registered sale deed. In that suit an application for injunction was filed but Roshanlal did not succeed in seeking the injunction. Roshanlal filed an application under Sec. 285 of the Act before the Sub Divisional Officer Dholpur and the Additional District Development Officer Dholpur, we know not under what powers vested in him under his order dated October 13,1987 stayed the operation of the resolution of the Municipal Board dated April 10,1983 under which it has been decided that the compromise should be arrived at. The file was sent to the Collector Dholpur for further orders. That case is still pending. Roshan Lal, respondent No. 4 filed an application before the Director, Local Bodies and the Director, Local Bodies, as has already been said earlier made the interim order.

4. The only question which is relevant is whether the order of the Director, Local Bodies is without jurisdiction.? We have already said earlier that a compromise was arrived at between the father of the petitioner and the Municipal Board and on the basis of that compromise as far back as on June 3, 1987, the civil suit filed by the father of the petitioner was decreed against the Municipal Board Dholpur and the decree was not challenged and therefore so far as the Municipal Board is concerned, it became final. If the Municipal Board thought that the decree had been secured as a result of collusion, the only remedy was to file a suit for cancellation of the decree. The Municipal Board has not filed any suit and in the suit filed by Roshanlal he failed to secure any injunction upto this court. A resolution of the Municipal Board can only be stayed under the powers vested in the Sub-Divisional Officer in case the order has not been acted upon. A bare reading of sub-section(1) of Sec. 285 of the Act will show that if in the opinion of the of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document