Rule 21 of the Disposal Rules, 1974 applies only to allotted plots, not auctioned ones, reaffirming the legislative distinction and invalidating unauthorized actions taken under it.

Order :

GANESH RAM MEENA, J.

1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the judgment and decree dated 13.01.1999 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan) [for short ‘the First Appellate Court’] in Civil Appeal No. 39/97, Municipal Council, Sawaimadhopur Vs. M/s. Bansal Traders and to restore the judgment and decree dated 16.07.1997 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Sawaimadhopur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Case No.9/92, M/s. Bansal Traders Vs. Municipal Council and to decree the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant throughout the cost.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant filed a civil suit before the trial court stating therein that the plaintiff/appellant has purchased one residential plot No.51, Maharana Pratap Colony, Mantown, Sawaimadhopur in an open auction held on 18.12.1982 and deposited the entire sale amount. It was further stated by the plaintiff/appellant that the ownership and possession of the plot was also handed over to him. After having sought the required permission on 18.01.1984 from the Municipal Council, Sawaimadhopur, the plaintiff/appellant got constructed the residential house as per the approved site plan. It was also stated that the plaintiff/appellant is using the said premises for the residential purpose only. However, the defendant/respondent on false pretext issued a notice dated 21.07.1989 in the Local Newspaper stating therein that the plaintiff/appellant is making use of the residential premises for the commercial activities and same being in violation of Rule 21 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (for short ‘the Disposal Rules of 1974’) and the defendant /respondent is authorized to take back the possession. It was stated in the plaint that neither the residential house is being used for the commercial activities nor Rule 21 of the Disposal Rules of 1974 is applicable as the plot was not allotted under Rules 17, 18 and 19 of the Disposal Rules, 1974 but it was purchased in an open auction under the provisions of Rule 14 in force at the relevant time.

3. The written statement was filed by the defendant/respondent in which it has been asserted that the plaintiff/appellant has not made the construction as per the approved plan and there is a violation of Rule 21 of the Disposal Rules, 1974.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as six issues, which are quoted as under:-

^^1- vk;k uxj ifj"kn oknh dks fookfnr Hkwfe ls csn[ky djus dh vf/kdkjh gS\

2- vk;k uxj ifj"kn }kjk oknh dks nh xbZ fuekZ.k Lohd`fr dk mYya?ku djrs gq, oknh }kjk fue.kZ dj oknh us jktLFkku] uxjh; Hkwfe fu"iknu 1974 dh /kkjk 21 dk mYya?ku fd;k gS\

3- vk;k ekfy;r nkok vf/kd gksus ds dkj.k U;k;ky; gktk dks bl okn dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gS\

4- vk;k oknh }kjk nkok lafLFkr djus ls iwoZ uxj ifj"kn dks /kkjk 271 jktLFkku uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1959 ds varxZr nks ekg dk uksfVl ugha fn;k x;k vkSj bl vk/kkj ij nkok oknh [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS\

5- vk;k oknh izfroknh dks LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ds vkns’k ls ikcan djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\

6- vuqrks"k\^^

5. Both the parties led their evidence.

6. The learned trial court vide its judgment dated 16.07.1997 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/appellant and ordered that the defendant/respondent shall not dispossess the plaintiff/appellant from the plot in question.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.07.1997 passed by the learned trial court, the defendant /respondent preferred a civil regular appeal before the First Appellate Co