Honble SHARMA, J.–As questions of law fall for consideration in both these petitions are identical, they were heard analogously and are proposed to be disposed of by a common order.

(2). A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings may be noted at the out set. A writ petition was filed by Kanti Chand Sharma (for short KC) against the Muni- cipal Corporation Jaipur (for short MC) and others on November 18, 1996 with the averments that a plot owned and possessed by him is situated at Ambabadi Jaipur. He has been residing and carrying on business over the said plot after making construction for more than 34 years. The land in question has been surrounded by barbed wire fencing and water and electricity connection were installed over it. The open space of the said land has been covered by long and big trees. The MC issued licence in the name of KC for carrying his business. Till November 2, 1996 the said constructions were in existence but thereafter the MC smashed it and the belongings of KC were thrown in Amanishah Nalas and thereby KC was put to a loss of about 6 lacs. Certified copies of judgment and decree dated October 25, 1996 have also been annexed with the writ petition showing that a compromise decree was passed by the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.4 Jaipur City, in the LOK ADALAT whereby the MC was restrained from demolishing the constructions on the suit land and from making interference in the peaceful enjoyment and use of the suit land without adopting the due course of law and without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to KC. It was also being averred in the writ petition that KC after became terrified from the threatening of Shri Mohan Lal Gupta, the Mayor of M.C., wrote an application for allotment of a portion of the land of an area of 100 sq. yards and wrote whatever Shri Mohan Lal Gupta desired to write. The MC after smashing the constructions rendered KC as a homeless orphan without adop- ting the due course of law, which according to Supreme Court was filing of a suit for declaration and eviction by the persons or authorities who claim the ownership and title over the said land. Summary proceedings under Section 203 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act 1959 (for short Act 1959) ought not have been adopted by the MC. It has therefore, been prayed that MC be directed not to interfere in the peaceful enjoyment of the land in question and if it claims any title in respect of the said land it been directed to file a civil suit for establishing the same.

(3). On January 20, 1997, KC initiated execution proceedings in respect of decree dated Oct. 25, 1996, in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.4 Jaipur City against MC and others. Alongwith the execution petition an appli- cation under Order 39, Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC was also filed. The learned executing court treated the said application under Section 151 CPC and directed both the parties to maintain status quo with respect of land in question during the pendency of the execution petition, vide order dated Feb. 27,1997. Against this order that the action for filing the revision has been resorted to by the MC.

(4). The MC submitted reply to the writ petition stating therein that KC was guilty of suppressing the material facts. After affording opportunity of showing cause he was dispossessed from the land in question on November 2, 1996 and thereafter on Jan. 27, 1997 the said land was put to auction. KC having intentionally concealed this fact that he was unsuccessful in seeking interim order against the Jaipur Development Authority, is not entitled for any relief in the writ petition.

(5). Mr. G.L. Pareek, learned counsel with all the vehemence at his command canvassed that KC has been in continuous possession over the land in question for a period of more than 35 years and he has a bonafide claim about his right to remain in occupation over the said land. This bonafide claim raises questions involving

Click Here to Read the rest of this document