Honble Prasad, J. – Petitioner in this writ petition, claims that a piece of land was allotted by the respondent Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the respondent- Trust) in favour of Secretary, Motilal Nehru Boarding House, Jodhpur vide Annex.1. Vide Annex.2 the said Boarding House was permitted to be constructed. Certain constructions were made on the land allotted. Subsequ- ent thereto, respondent no.3 decided to give a portion of this land on rent. A piece of land measuring 30 ft. x 10 ft. was given on a monthly rent of Rs. 1400/- to the petitioner.

(2). Petitioner, after obtaining possession, raised certain constructions to run a scrap shop. Subsequently, petitioner obtained licence for running the shop from the Shops & Commercial Establishments Department in the year 1991. The licence issued to petitioner has been produced as Annex.3. Petitioner also obtained telephone connection. A photostat copy of telephone bill has also been submitted by petitioner as Annex.4. By the aforesaid, petitioner claims that he was put in lawful possession.

(3). The land was allotted by respondent-Trust to respondent no. 3, who had put in petitioner in possession and has received rent regularly. The respondent-Trust was aware of the facts and no objection whatsoever was taken regarding le- tting out of the portion of land by respondent no. 2 in favour of petitioner and other tenants.

(4). A notice was issued by the respondent-Trust to respondent no.3, a copy of the notice has been produced as Annex.5. The notice was replied vide Annex.7. In the reply, respondent no.3 submitted that they have constructed eight rooms. However, when certain persons tried to encroach upon a part of the land, the same was rented out to certain persons. After this, petitioner received a notice issued by the Authorised Officer vide Annex.8 dt. 26.9.1997. This notice was issued u/S. 92-A of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1959). A reply was submitted to the notice by petitioner and the same has been produced as Annex.9. Vide Annex.10, Authorised Officer made an order against petitioner on 4.3.1998 whereby petitioner was asked to remove his possession over the land in question. Against the order Annex.10 passed by the Authorised Officer, petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Jodhpur, which was transferred to Addl. District Judge for disposal. The learned Addl. Distt. Judge, Jodh- pur vide its order dt.7.9.1998 (Annex.11) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.

(5). Petitioner, after decision of the said appeal, approached the Officers of the respondent-Trust including Chairman and pleaded that he is carrying on business as tenant. Section 92-A of the Act of 1959 is not meant for evicting a person having lawful possession on the land. Petitioner has not made any encroachment on the public land. In fact, petitioner was put in possession by respondent no.3, who was lawful owner of the land and thus, Authorised Officer was not competent to invoke provisions of Sec. 92A of the Act of 1959.

(6). Petitioner was assured by the Officers of the Respondent- Trust that action for evicting the petitioner from the land in question shall be taken strictly in accor- dance with law. Petitioner felt assured that no action would be taken against the petitioner by the Trust because Section 92A of the Act of 1959 does not provide for any action against a person who is in peaceful possession of the land as a tenant of the erstwhile allottee.

(7). Petitioner, further averred that to his surprise, he received a notice dated 22.4.99 to the effect that he should remove his encroachment within three days. A copy of notice has been produced as Annex. 12. A reply was submitted by petitioner vide Annex.13. It was further averred by petitioner that Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.1, Jodhpur has passed an order that petitioner will not be evicted by use of force. He can only be evicted by follo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document