CHOUTHMAL Vs. TRACK UNION JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Chouthmal and by it he challenges the validity of an order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur dated 5-9-63 (Ex. 3) and prays for an appropriate writ, direction or order. The relevant facts are briefly theses - The subject-matter of the dispute is a plot of Nazul land (Plot No. A2) situated at Dausa within the Municipal limits. Prior to the establishment of the Municipal Board in Dausa certain municipal functions were being performed by a body known as Town Improvement Board under a Government notification which ran as follows:- "jaipur, January 6,/march 7, 1963. No. F. l (K) (l)/l. S. G. /53.- It is hereby notified for general information that the Government have been pleased to constitute a Town Improvement Board at Dausa with the following personnel: - (1) Sub-Divisional Officer, Dausa. . . Convenor. (2) Shri Triveni Shyam Sharma, M. L. A. Member, (3) Shri Chairman, Municipal Board, Dausa - do - (4) Shri Shiv Sahaijoshi, Dausa - do - (5) Assistant Engineer, Dausa - do - The Town Improvement Board can copt 2 more members when necessary. " THIS Town Improvement Board functioned at Dausa till it had come to be abrogated by another Government notification dated 19-9 61 published in the Rajasthan Gazette of 26th October, 1961. The petitioner's case is that plot No. A2 was put to auction by the Town Improvement Board and the petitioner was the highest bidder for purchasing the same. However, according to the petitioner, though he had deposited the one fourth price and from time to time offered to pay the remaining three-fourth, the formalities for the sale of the plot could not be completed while the Town Improvement Board was functioning. It appears (that while the Town Improvement Board was functioning, a Municipality was also functioning at Dausa under the Town Municipalities Act, 1961, but the said Municipality was not entrusted with the powers of selling Nazul land lying within the Municipal area. In the year 1959, Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 was passed and a new Board under that Act was constituted and the Town Improvement Board was abolished and its functions were taken over by the Municipal Board, Dausa. The petitioner avers that he pursued the matter regarding the sale with the Municipal Board, Dausa and by its resolution dated 11-11-62 the Board directed the issue of patta in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner having already deposited the one-fourth of the sale price, that is, Rs. 450/-, he deposited the remainder, that is, Rs. 1172/3/- and on 9-12-62 a patta was issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of this land. It further appears that before the land was auctioned respondent No. 1, Truck Union was introduced on the land as a tenant and it was paying monthly rent to the erst-while Town Improvement Board for the same. Respondent No. 1 was also desirous of purchasing this land and had made several attempts to get the same. I am not concerned with the old history, but it appears that when the Truck Union found that a resolution had been passed for giving the land to the petitioner the Truck Union made an application to the Additional Collector, Jaipur against the order of the Municipal Board, Dausa for selling the land to respondent No. 1. The Additional Collector went into the matter, but found that there was nothing wrong with the sale and accordingly he rejected the application of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 then filed an application under sec. 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, hereinafter referred as the "act", before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur. The Revenue Appellate Authority held by the impugned order that the sale in favour of the petitioner by the Municipal Board was in contravention of law as the approval of the Collector had not been taken. According to the Revenue Appellate Authority, the sale being for an amount exceeding Rs. 200/- approval of the Collector was necessary according to sec. 80 of the Act. In these circumstances the Revenue Appellate Authority set aside the resolution of the Municipal Board, Dausa dated 11-11-62 as also the order of the Additional Collector, Jaipur dated 28-2-63 and directed the refund of the sale price to the petitioner.

(2.) IN assailing the validity of the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority it is contended by the petitioner that the land in question having not been vested in the Municipal Board under the provisions of the Act, it was not necessary for the Municipal Board to have taken the approval of the Collector for the sale. It is maintained that all Nazul lands were placed at the disposal of the Municipal Boards by a Government notification dated 8-10-59 which was issued under sec. 102 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 and, therefore, all that was necessary for the Board was to follow the procedure laid down in the notification. IN the alternative it is submitted that by his order dated 28-2-63 the Additional Collector, Jaipur should be taken to have approved of the sale and this approval, according to the petitioner, was sufficient to meet the requirements of sec. 80 of the Act. It is also contended that the Revenue Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and to order the refund of the sale price to the petitioner. It was finally submitted that the Revenue Appellate Authority had overlooked the position that according to sec. 6a of the Act an Additional Collector was a Collector for the purposes of the Act and consequently the approval given by the Additional Collector on 28 2-63 in his order was as good as the approval of the Collector.