A.M. Sapre, J. - (1.) This is an intra court appeal filed by respondent of Writ Petition No.2200/1980 under Section 18 of Rajasthan High Court's Ordinance, 1949 against an order dated 29.5.2002 passed by Single Judge in above writ petition.
(2.) By impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ filed by writ petitioner (respondent herein) and in consequence quashed impugned notices dated 17.1.1979 and 24.10.1980 issued by appellant (Municipal Board) herein to writ petitioner in relation to one property (plot) called "Jaisalmer House" by which the appellant had claimed restoration of possession of the said property consequent upon the expiry of its lease period. So the question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition and in consequence justified in quashing the notice impugned therein?
(3.) This is what the learned Single Judge held while allowing the writ:- "The plot in question, according to the petitioner, was private property of the then Ruler of Jaisalmer State and same has been shown as their private property in the inventory prepared in pursuance to Article 12 of the Covenant entered between the then Ruler and the Union of India. The non-petitioners are claiming that the property belongs to Municipal Board, Mount Abu because it was Government vacant land, falling in the municipal area. The non-petitioners also submitted that this property was leased to the then Ruler of Jaisalmer on 99 years' lease by the then Ruler of Sirohi and according to the non-petitioners, above lease period expired on 13.1.1973. Thereafter, the lease period has not been extended and therefore, the non-petitioner is authorised to dispossess the petitioner. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. Not an iota of evidence has been submitted with regard to 99 years' lease made by the then Ruler of Sirohi in favour of the then Ruler of Jaisalmer with regard to plot in question. The documents submitted by non-petitioners related to Bharatpur State only. The analogy that when at Mount Abu plots were given on 99 years' lease to the then ruler Bharatpur, perhaps the plots may also be allotted to other allottees on lease hold basis, is not tenable. When the petitioner has shown this property as his private property in the inventory referred above, unless and until cogent and convincing evidence is produced, it can not be held that this property was with the then Ruler of Jaisalmer on lease-hold basis. Consequently, there is merit in this petition. The same is accepted and notice Annx.3 dated 17th January, 1979 and Annx.5 dated 24th October, 1980 respectively, stand quashed.";