B.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.7.98 (Annex. 12) passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur, in Revision Petition No. 20/1993. by which the order dated 7.7.93 passed by the District Collector, Barmer, has been interfered to the extent that an inquiry may be held regarding title of the land and to proceed further strictly in accordance with law.
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners claim to have purchased the plot in dispute, measuring 705 square feet, from one Umed Singh vide registered sale deed for a consideration of so Rs. 16,500/- on 13.1.92. As they intended to construct a building on the said plot, they filed an application (Annex. 2) under Sub-section (1) of Section 170 of the Rajasthan Muncipalities Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act'). On the said application, general notice was published for inviting objection. Kesri Mal and Hem Raj filed objections contending that the petitioners may not be permitted to construct the house as they were having some interest in the land. However, a report was called for and inspection of the site was made and permission was accorded for constructing the house to the petitioner vide order dated 6.6.92 and a letter was issued to this effect on 10.6.92 (Annex. 5). Petitioners constructed the house as per the said permission and completed it in 1992 itself, Respondent No. 3 Heera Lal preferred an appeal under Section 170 (12) of the Act, 1959 against the said permission dated 6.6.92 before the District Collector, Barmer and the said appeal was disposed of vide order dated 7.7.93 (Annex. 7) by which the District Collector held that said Heera Lal had no concern with the land in dispute and his appeal was liable to be rejected. However, in the concluding part of the order, the District Collector directed as under- "It has also been submitted before me that the land had been purchased by the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from Umed Singh and the latter had no title/interest in the (sic) land. While granting the sanction by the Municipal Board, the matter has not been examined from this angle by the Municipal Board. Therefore, this order of the Board cannot be held to be justified. It is in the interest of justice that it requires further examination whether Umed Singh, vendor, had any title over the land in dispute -
(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioners preferred the revision before the Additional Divisional Commissioner under Section 300 of the Act, 1959 and the same has been disposed of by the impugned order dated 31.7.98 (Annex. 2), by which the Additional Divisional Commissioner has also directed the Municipal Board to examine the title of vendor Umed Singh. Hence this petition and proceed further according to law.;