K. S. LODHA, J. - (1.) THERE is a 'kucchi Basti' in Ward No. 12 within the Municipal area of Town Nokha. The petitioner claims to be in possession of about 1600 sq. yards' piece of land in this ward. It appears that in the year 1981, some particulars were invited by the Municipal Board, Nokha regarding the unauthorised possession of people on any land within the Municipal area and the petitioner submitted his application vide Anx. R-2/1, a copy of which has been filed by respodent no. 2, along with his affidavit dated 14. 11. 81. It appears that the Municipal Board again invited applications for regularisation of the unauthorised occupation vide Anx. R/2/2 dated 16. 8. 84 and the parties concerned were required to submit the proof of their possession between 22. 8. 84 and 6. 9. 84. Later, another notice was issued by the Municipal Board on 1. 10. 88, a copy of which is Anx. R-2/3. According to this notice, a camp was held for the purpose of regularisation in the ward concerned on 3. 10. 88. It is admitted by respondent no. 2 vide para 7 of the reply that this notice was served upon the petitioner only on 3. 10. 88. The case of the petitioner is that as a matter of fact, no meeting was held on 3. 10. 88 as envisaged by notice Anx. R-2/3, whereas the case of respondent no. 2 is that the scheduled meeting was held on that day. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the notice of this meeting was served on the petitioner only on 3. 10. 88, leaving no time for him to appear at the meeting and submit proof in support of his possession over the land in dispute. Then, on 7. 3. 89, the petitioner moved an application, a copy of which has been filed by respondent no-2 as Anx. R-2/4 stating therein that in the survey report dated 1. 1. 81 his possession has already been recorded and that was suffi-cient proof of his possession and he prayed that his possession may be regularised. No action appears to have been taken on this application. However, according to the petitioner, he was threatened with dispossession from the land in dispute and, therefore, he approached this court by way of present writ petition and on 13. 4. 89, a stay order was passed in his favour directing the status quo to be maintained as it existed on that day. The petitioner has prayed in the writ petition that an appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued to the respondents to execute a sale-deed or lease-deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the impugned land in after depositing of the amount as mentioned in the information letter dated 1. 10. 88 and further the respondents may be restrained from interfering with the petitioner's possession over the land in dispute or demolishing his house standing therein. The case of respondent no. 2-Municipal Board, Nokha, however, is that, as a matter of fact, the petitioner was not at all in possession of any part of the land and somehow or the other, he got his possession recorded in the survey report and it was on the basis of that survay report, that he claimed possession. According to the Municipal Board, it was on account of this clendestine effort on the part of the petitioner to get his possession recorded in the survey report, that he has thought it proper to claim the regularisation of the land. It was also urged that despite the notice dated 16. 8. 84 (Anx. R-2/2) and further notice dated 1. 10. 88 (Anx. R-2/3), the petitioner failed to produce any proof of his possession and therefore, he was not entitled to get his possession regularised. It was further pointed out by learned counsel for respondent no. 2 that the petitioner is a lier inasmuch as in his affidavit which was submitted along with Anx. R-2/1 in 1981, he has stated his age to be 21 years, whereas in another affidavit Anx. 3, which was sworn on 7. 3. 89, he has stated his age to be 25 years, and on it goes to show that as a matter of fact,, the petitioner had no old possession over the land in dispute. Lastly, it was also urged that according to the Rules of regularisation, only pieces of land not exceeding 500 sq. yards could be regularised by respondent no. 2 and since the petitioner claims regularisation of a piece of land measuring 1600 sq. yards, he cannot claim regularisation.
(2.) AN application has also been filed on behalf of one Jeth Mal for being impleaded as a party to this writ petition. He claims that the land in dispute had been purchased by him from the Municipal Board, Nokha in the year 1975 and, therefore, he is interested in the matter. He has produced a copy of the sale-deed dated 24. 12. 75, according to which Plot No. 86 measuring 600 sq. yeards had been sold to him. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as also learned counsel for Jethmal. So far as Jethmal is concerned, in my opinion, he need not be impleaded as a party to these proceedings because at this stage, the ownership of the land in dispute is not going to be decided by this Court. His application is, therefore, rejected. From what has been stated above, it clearly appears that the petitioner had been claiming possession over the disputed piece of land atleast since 1981 when he had submitted the application or particulars vide Anx. R-2/1. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, of course, urges that this was not the application for regularisation of the possession of the petitioner oyer the land in dispute, but all the same it cannot be denied that these particulars were invited by the Municipal Board with a view to regularising the possession and when the petitioner had submitted these particulars along with his affidavit, action ought to have been taken on that application. Further, the Municipal Board itself had invited the petitioner to submit his proof regarding possession vide Anx. R-2/2 and letter Anx. R-2/3. If the petitioner had failed to submit his proof in pursuance of Anx. R-2/2, his application could have been rejected, but this was not done and further notice was issued by the Municipal Board on 1. 10. 88 vide Anx. R-2/3, and as already stated above, this notice was served, according to the case of the Municipal Board itself, only on 3-10-88, the day on which the meeting was fixed and on which he was required to submit his proof. The petitioner, therefore, could not be expected to have submitted any proof of his possession, on that day. However, the petitioner did again move an application on 7. 3. 89 citing the survey report of the Municipal Board itself as the proof of his possession, but no orders were passed on this application either and the matter was left in lurch. Not only this, it further appears that in-spite of the pendency of this application, the-Municipal Board tried to disposses the petitioner from the land in dispute and being threatened with this dispossession, the petitioner had to approach this Court and this court passed a stay order in his favour on 13. 4. 89. It is significant to note here that now learned counsel for respondent no. 2, viz. Municipal Board, comes forward with a plea that the petitioner had already been dispossessed on 13. 4. 89 itself, the day on which the stay order was passed by this Court. I am unable to accept this contention on its face value inasmuch as although in para 7 of the reply, it has been mentioned " The administrator of the answering non-petitioner or and on 13. 4. 89 to demolish remove encroachment and the same was done on 13. 4. 89. There is some over-writing on the first date "13. 4. 89" mentioned above, but no order of the administrator or the copy of the proceedings, which had been taken on 13. 4. 89 in order to remove the petitioner's possession and to demolish his construction, have been produced. I leave the matter at that. In these circumstances, it is apperantly clear that the petitioner's application for regularisation of his possession over the land in dispute, still remains-undecided and it is for the Municipal Board to dispose it of in accordance with law. The question raised by the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 - Muni-cipal Board about the age of the petitioner, is a question of fact and need not be decided in these proceedings by this Court. So far as the question that only the possession on pieces of land not exceeding 500 sq. yards could be regularised by the Municipal Board goes, it may be stated that although in the -application Anx. R-2/1, the petitioner had mentioned his possession over 1600 sq. yards, in the writ petition, he claims possession over 80 ft. x 80 ft. piece of land only. That question can also be decided by the Municipal Board while disposing of the petitioner's application for regularisation. The contention of learned counsel for respondent no. 2 that the petitioner has surreptitiously got his possession recorded in the survey report of 1981, is again a question of fact and this could not be decided by the Municipal Board without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the same will also be open to it when it disposes of the petitioner's application for regularisation.
(3.) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and respondent no. 2 (Municipal Board, Nokha) is directed to dispose of the petitioner's application Anx. R-2/1 and Anx. R-2/4 within three months from today, after notice to the petitioner. Jethmal shall also be free to move application before the Municipal Board to afford him an opportunity of hearing and it will be for the Municipal Board to dispose of that application. .;