Back
2009 Supreme(Raj) 52
[Citation : 2009(3) RLW 2541 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Mohammed Haroon Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (Vyas, J.)
HON'BLE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J.
Mohammed Haroon
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3356 of 2007, decided on 13.01.2009
P.R. Mehta, for Petitioner;
B.S. Charan, for Respondents
Headnote:Constitution of India, Art. 227 — Writ petition — Notice given to petitioner for dispossession from his commercial shop by Municipal Council — Procedure laid down in the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1964 is not followed — Application filed for regularisation on old possession — Legality of notice challenged — Opportunity of hearing not given — Held — It is admitted position that initially the petitioner took the land in his possession as a tenant from a society — Land was allotted by Urban Improvement Trust to society for construction of school, play ground and community ground — Society gave the land for commercial activity illegally in contravention of term of allotment — Allotment was cancelled and proceeding was initiated against the society and petitioner given notice for dispossession after judgment rendered by this court in writ petition — It is clear that order has been passed after following the procedure under the law — Petitioner concealed the fact of previous litigation and order in filing this writ petition — It is clear that before passing the dispossession order, the proceeding was initiated and opportunity of hearing also given to petitioner — No illegality committed in issuing notice — No question of passing regulation order arises.
Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 14 to 17)
Hkkjr dk lafo/kku] vuqPNsn 227 & fjV ;fpdk & uxj ikfydk ifj"kn }kjk izkFkhZ dks vius O;olkf;d nqdku ls csdkfct djus gsrq uksfVl fn;k x;k & jktLFkku lkoZtfud ifjlj ¼vukf/kd`r vf/kHkksxh dh csn[kyh½ vf/kfu;e 1964 esa fn;s x;s izfØ;k dk vuqlj.k ugha fd;k x;k & iqjkus dCtk ds vk/kkj ij fu;fefrdj.k gsrq vkosnu isk fd;k & uksfVl dh oS/krk dks pqukSrh lquokbZ dk volj ugha fn;k x;k & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ;g Lohd`r fLFkfr gS fd izkFkhZ izkjafHkd :i ls Hkwfe vius dCts esa fdjk;snkj ds :i esa ,d lkslkbVh ls yh Fkh & Hkwfe lkslkbVh dks uxj fodkl U;kl }kjk fo|ky;] [ksy eSnku ,oa lkeqnkf;d eSnku ds fuekZ.k gsrq vkoafVr dh x;h Fkh & lkslkbVh vfof/ker% vkoaVu ds krZ ds vfrØe.k esa O;olkf;d dk;Z gsrq Hkwfe fn;k & vkoaVu fujLr fd;k x;k vkSj lkslkbVh ds fo:) dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dh x;h Fkh ,oa bl U;k;ky; }kjk fjV ;kfpdk esa fn;s fu.kZ; ds ipkr izkFkhZ dks csdCtk gsrq uksfVl fn;k x;k & ;g Li"V gS fd dkuwu ds rgr izfØ;k dk vuqlj.k djus ds ipkr~ vknsk ikfjr fd;k x;k gS & izkFkhZ fjV ;kfpdk isk djus esa iwoZ ds eqdnesckth ,oa vknsk ds rF; dks Nqik;k gS & ;g Li"V gS fd csdkfct vknsk ikfjr djus ls igys dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dh x;h Fkh vkSj izkFkhZ dks Hkh lquokbZ dk volj fn;k x;k Fkk & uksfVl tkjh djus esa voS/krk dkfjr ugha dh x;h & fu;fefrdj.k vknsk ikfjr djus dk izu mRiUu ugha gksrk gSA ¼in la[;k 14 ls 17½
fjV ;kfpdk [kkfjt dhA
Hon'ble VYAS, J.—Both the above writ petitions involve common controversy arising from identical facts and circumstances. The relief prayed for is identical. Hence, both these writ petitions are decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, however, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3356/2007, Mohammed Haroon vs. State of Rajasthan & Another are taken into consideration.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing impugned notice Annex. 11 dated 8.2.2007 while praying that the respondents may be restrained to dispossess the petitioner from his commercial shoop situated at plot No. 7 & 8, Shabri Colony, Ayed, Udaipur.
3. The claim of the petitioner is that he is running his shop being tenant on the plot measuring 20' x 100' and the said land was taken on rent by him from Bheel Gameti Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. The said registered society was allotted total 14782 Sq. ft. area of land by the Urban Improvement Trust and, as per petitioner, at the time of taking this land on rent by the petitioner, the territorial jurisdiction of the land was vested in the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur and the UIT executed a sale-deed in favour of the Shabri Colony Cooperative Housing Society on 16.1.1968. It is stated in the writ petition by the petitioner that the Shabri Colony Cooperative Housing Society and Bheel Gameti Cooperative Housing Society are two names of one and the same cooperative society, therefore, the sale-deed was executed in the name of Ayed Shabri Colony Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Udiapur.
4. As per the assertion of the petitioner, he was peacefully running his business and earning his livelihood for last many years; but, a notice was issued to him earlier on 22.9.1999 and the petitioner was directed to vacate the possession from plots No. 7 & 8, upon which, the petitioner was running his business. Aggrieved by the said notice, a suit was filed by him along with a temporary injunction application. The trial Court registered the case of the petitioner along with another person Lalit Kothari bearing case No. 4/2000 and passed interim order on 6.1.2000 while restraining the Urban Improvement Trust from dispossessing the petitioner. Thereafter, finally the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), City (North), Udaipur vide judgment dated 22.11.2006 allowed the suit for perpetual injunction filed by the petitioner and Lalit Kothari and vide the aforesaid decree and judgment, the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur was directed not to dispossess the petitioner except by way of due process of law.
5. The case of the petitioner is that although the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner and above order was passed on 22.11.2006, he was again given notice by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Udaipur whereby the petitioner was informed to vacate the possession of the land within 24 hours. The case of the petitioner is that the State Government has issued order dated 18.11.2000 whereby it has been decided to regularize the plots/shops/space which is given to the occupants on rent, lease or use and occupation within the limits of the Municipal Corporation, Council, or Board, as the case may be, therefore, the petitioner applied for regulation of the plot which he had taken on rent from the society. But, ignoring all the facts with regard to regularization, the impugned notice has been issued.
6. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the said notice issued by the Municipal Council, Udaipur dated 8.2.2007 on various grounds.
7. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after passing the decree by the civil Court, even if it is admitted that the petitioner is to be called unauthorized occupant, no such impugned notice can be issued by the Municipal Council, Udaipur because for dispossessing the him from the land in question the procedure laid down in the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964 is to be foll
