Honble PRASAD, J.–Petitioner in this writ petition has claimed that he is an owner of plot No. 42 situated in P.W.D. Colony, Jodhpur. This plot was purchased by petitioner alongwith one Shri Gopal Mal from Shri Parmanand. The sale-deed was executed on 18.1.1961. Originally the plot was in the joint name of Shri Gopal Mal and petitioner Sumer Mal. Thereafter the property was divided in two portions of 100 x 100 each and Shri Gopal Mal and petitioner were to have a plot of 100 x 100 each.

(2). Petitioner was desirous of raising construction on the plot and for that matter he applied to the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur (referred to hereinafter as `the U.I.T.) for seeking permission. The U.I.T. felt that division of plot in between petitioner and Shri Gopal Mal is a sub-division and, therefore, sub-division charges and penalty was imposed on the petitioner. The same was deposited by petitioner. After the aforesaid deposit the matter was processed for granting permission for raising construction and the permission was granted to the petitioner vide Annex.2. This permission was granted subject to certain conditions. The construction started on 11.2.1994.

(3). Petitioner clams that he had taken all possible care and precaution to abide by the conditions mentioned in the permission letter. While the construction was going on peacefully, petitioner received a communication dated 7.3.1994 sent by the U.I.T. By this communication, petitioner was informed that the permission granted to him vide letter dated 18.12.1993 Annex.2 was stayed till further orders and petitioner was directed not to raise any construction over his plot. A copy of the communication dated 7.3.1994 has been produced as Annex.3. Petitioner further states that Annex. 3 makes a reference of Governments letter dated 22.2.1994. A copy of the letter of the Government dated 22.2.1994 has been produc- ed as Annex.4.

(4). According to the petitioner, the letter Annex. 4 reveals that some complaints have been filed before the State Government and the State Government is proceeding to make an enquiry in the matter and ordered stoppage of construction over the plot in question. Petitioner claims that the letter dated 22.2.1994 is penal in nature and it visits petitioner with evil and civil consequences. The order has been passed without any notice to the petitioner and without hearing. Petitioner has not been apprised of the cause for passing such an order.

(5). Petitioner further submits that so far as the provisions for grant of permission is concerned, the same finds place in Chapter IX of the Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 (referred to hereinafter as `the Act of 1959). In accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1959, petitioner applied for permission, which was processed in accordance with Chapter IX of the Act of 1959 and thereafter the permission was granted to petitioner. Petitioner has contended that the permission granted to him became final, as it was not challenged by way of an appeal, as provided under the Act of 1959. No appeal, as provided under sub-section (9) of Section 73 of the Act of 1959, was ever preferred and the order granting permission, thus, became final. According to petitioner, no power is given to any authority, howsoever high it may be, to cancel the same. Petitioner further states that a number of persons have been granted permission to raise high rise buildings. The construction, which was raised by petitioner, was going on till 5.4.1994.

(6). Petitioner claims and impugns the order of the State Government Annex. 4 on the ground that the State Government cannot question the permission once granted by the U.I.T. Petitioner claims that the State Government and its functionaries are under a legal obligation to act in accordance with the spirit of the Act of 1959 and it was not open to the State Government to embark upon an enquiry in the matter where the permission has been granted by the autonomous body like U.I.T. There is no power vested un

Click Here to Read the rest of this document