Honble TATIA, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2). S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.86/81 has been preferred by defendant-Municipal Board, Bikaner against the judgment and decree dated 6-9-1979 by which the trial court granted decree for perpetual injunction against the appellant-defendant Municipal Board, holding that the plot in dispute shall not be sold by auction on objection of defendant no.2 but in case any neighbour raises any objection against the disposal of the land under Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land ) Rules, 1974 (for short "the Rules of 1974"), then the land be disposed of by public auction. The appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court was dismissed by the appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 5-11-1080.

(3). S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.91/1981 is also against the same judgments and decrees referred above but by defendant no.2, who is also seeking allotment of land in his favour.

(4). The facts which are not in dispute are that plaintiff no.1 is a Trust and plaintiff no.2 is the Chief Trustee of plaintiff no.1-Trust. Plaintiff no.1 applied for the allotment of the plot in dispute having measurement of 264 sq.ft. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiffs property for which Patta was issued in favour of plaintiff no. 1 on 29-4-1949 is situated adjoining to the plot in dispute. Since the land in dispute is a small strip of land having measurement of less than 100 sq.yards, therefore, the plaintiff no.1 is entitled to apply for allotment of the strip of land under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1974. Plaintiff no.1, therefore, applied for allotment of land on 10-6-1970, upon which file was constituted. Since the land cost was more than Rs.500/-, therefore, prior approval of the District Collector was needed as per the Rules, hence the matter was sent to the District Collector, Bikaner for approval. The District Collector, Bikaner granted approval for sale of the land in favour of plaintiff no.1 by order dated 28-9-1971 on payment of Rs.9/- per sq.ft.. The plaintiff was not agreeable to pay the cost of the land at the rate of Rs.9/- per sq.ft., therefore, the plaintiff preferred revision petition against the order of the District Collector. Bikaner. Till the filing of the suit, said revision was not decided by the revisional authority. According to the plaintiff though the revision petition of the plaintiff for getting the rate reduced was pending, still the plaintiff deposited Rs.2376/- which is the cost of the land approved by the District Collector and which is at the rate of Rs.9/- per sq.ft. This amount was deposited on 8-4-1975 by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, meanwhile part of the land in question was encroached upon by defendant no.2 (appellant in S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.91/81). Defendant no.2, on the basis of his possession, submitted the objection against the allotment of land in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant no.2 also submitted that he is ready and willing to purchase the said strip of land and he even prepared to pay Rs.25/- per sq.ft. The matter was referred to the District Collector, Bikaner, upon which the learned District Collector, Bikaner vide order dated 27-3-1976 ordered that the land be put to public auction. The plaintiff prayed that since the decision was taken to allot the land in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff already deposited Rs.2376/- on 8-4-1975 in pursuance of the order of the District Collector, Bikaner dated 28-9-1971, therefore, the learned District Collector had no jurisdiction to dispose of the land by public auction. It is also submitted that defendant no.2 had no adjoining plot, adjoining the land in dispute, therefore, he had no locus standi to claim the plot under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1974 and he has no locus standi to challenge sale of the land in favour of plaintiff by the Municipal Board. The plaintiff prayed that the plot may not be auctioned on the request of defendant no.2 and it may be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document