BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the orders Annexures 4, 5 & 7 passed by the authorised officer Land Conversion and SDM Pratapgarh on 29. 9. 1994, Revenue Appellate Authority on 25. 7. 96 and by Board of Revenue on 25. 3. 1997 respectively. These proceedings concern the conversion and use of land in question for commercial purposes. The authorised officer by his order dated 29. 9. 94 imposed the condition that the owner of the land shall not make any construction within 33 ft. from the centre of the road which is the adjoining to the road in question. Aggrieved with the said order, the present petitioner filed a revision before the Revenue Appellate Authority, who rejected the same by his order dated 25. 07. 1996 by holding the revision barred by time and also on merit. Drawing attention to Rule 5 (4) (b) (ii) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Residential and Commercial Purpose in Urban Areas) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter called, "the Rules of 1981'), it held that the land and road in question is situated within the municipal area and limit of the distance from the centre of the line of the road within which regularisation for the construction purposes is prohibited, has been confined to 10 mtrs. in respect of road and highway passing through the Municipal area, which is not a by-pass and thoroughfare. The said provision was brought into effect with effect from 17. 9. 88. The condition for restricting construction within 30 fts. from the centre of the road was within the parameters prescribed under the rules of 1981 and as a matter of right it cannot be claimed that such restriction should be extended to 50 fts. as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Aggrieved with the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Board of Revenue, which was rejected vide Annx. 7 dated 25. 03. 1997. The Board not only affirmed the order on merit but also found that the land in question belong to the respondents and about user and conversion of which the petitioner Dharam Chand has not disclosed any subsisting interest which could give him any locus to raise any objection about such conversion. It also found that like objections have been raised by the son of the petitioner in the proceedings for grant of permission for construction before the municipal council wherein he has failed and his son has also failed to obtain an interim injunction from the Civil Court where he had filed a suit. Aggrieved with these orders, the present writ petition has been filed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of opinion that there is no merit in this petition. Firstly, it is not comprehensible how second appeal lay against the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction before the Board. It is also to be noticed that under the National Highways Act, 1956, the part of highways which are situated within any municipal area could not be declared to be National Highway within the meaning of Sec. 3 of that Act until it was amended. That is to say, that part of any Highway which has been declared as National Highway and specified in the schedule annexed to the National Highways Act, 1956 prior to amendment which falls within any municipal area, is not to be considered as part of notification declaring any highway as national highway between one terminus to another terminus and is not governed by the provisions of the National High ways Act but is governed by the State laws governing the maintenance of the building lines on both the sides of the roads and the municipal laws in respect of the roads existing within the municipal area or for that matter within the area administered by any local authority. Moreover once any highway from destination to destination is declared a national highway, and for speedy transport and traffic convenience bye-passes outside the intervening cities are constructed making direct link of road between the two terminuses of national highway, the direct route through bye-pass can only be construed as national highway and not all tributary roads leading from different directions and joining different villages enroute two terminus become part of national highway. Such link roads remain municipal/state roads. Therefore, no advantage can be taken by the petitioner from the provisions of the National Highways Act and rules framed thereunder imposing any condition as to construction under the said Act.
(3.) THERE is no denying of the fact that under the aforesaid rules of 1978 framed under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, the limit within which any construction is prohibited on the lands situated on both the sides of the road be that National Highway or State Highway passing through the municipal areas is only 10 meters and not 15 meters as is the general limit prescribed under sub clause (1) of Rule 5 (4) (b ). THEREfore, the authorities below were justified in restricting the construction on the converted area within 33 ft. only from the centre line of the road in question. Moreover, the Board of Revenue with detailed reasons has found that the petitioner having no interest in the land and no interest in the user of the land which has been converted by the order dated 29. 9. 94, has no locus to maintain this objection. That apart, that very same effort was made by the son of the petitioner before the Municipality and the civil Court has not resulted in any order in their favour and these further suggests that petitioner and members of his family are indulging in multiplicity of proceedings by way of persecution of the respondents and not prosecution of their rights. Extraordinary jurisdiction ordinarily is not to be invoked for benefit of proliferated litigation. Petition is hereby dismissed with costs. . ;