SARJOO PROSAD, C. J. - (1.) RAMLAL and seventyone others have moved this court under art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the notices, dated March 30, 1960, October 6/8 1960 and March 17, 1961 requiring them to vacate certain plots of land in wards Nos. 8 and 9 of the Hanumangarh Municipal area, and for the issue of a writ restraining the respondents from demolishing their shops on those plots. It now appears that petitioners Nos. 6, 9, 17, 55, 56 and 57 are no longer interested in continuing the proceedings.
(2.) IT has been represented by the petitioners that when they came to Hanumangarh in 1947-48 on account of the communal disturbances in Sind and the Punjab, they were allotted certain plots of land in wards Nos. 8 and 9 of Hanumangarh Municipality, as shown in their map Ex. 1. Notification Ex. 2 dated July 3, 1944 defines the boundaries of the Municipality. The land which was lying open, was divided into plots by the Municipal Board and allotted to the petitioners, or their predecessors-in-title, for construction of shops. The petitioners claim that they have been in continuous occupation of their respective plots, that they constructed 'pakka' shops during 1947-48 and that their lease-deeds were renewed by the Municipality from time to time upto 31. 3. 1954. Thereafter, fresh lease-deeds were not executed, but the Municipality continued to accept monthly rent, which has been duly paid upto 31. 3. 1960 and continues to be paid thereafter. The rent was paid as "teh Bazari" tax under the relevant rules and the petitioners claim that, in these circumstances, they became permanent leaseholders of their plots; or, at any rate, acquired statutory rights under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. Their grievance is that the notice (Ex. 9) given by the Tehsildar, Colonisation, Hanumangarh, on March 30, 1960, requires them to remove their structures from the plots within a period of one month and threatens them further that in case of default removal would be carried out by the State and the expenses recovered from the petitioners. The petitioners made a representation to the Tehsildar challenging the notice for want of jurisdiction as also on merits and also made a representation to the Bhakra Mandi Development Board, Hanumangarh. They have been informed by the Secretary of that Board on October 6/8, 1960 (vide Ex. 10) that they should remove the structures from the plots within two moths, offering alternative plots in the proposed new Mandi area. The petitioners state that while they made applications for allotment of alternative sites, they also demanded compensation for their existing structures, as also certain other facilities for rehabilitating themselves in the new premises. This request of theirs appears to have been turned down and the Commissioner, Colonisation, Bhakra, has issued another notice (Ex. 12) on March 17, 1961, calling upon the petitioners to remove their shops and the building material within one week and threatening, at the same time, that in case of default the structures would be removed at Government expense and the cost thereof realised from them as arrears of land revenue. The petitioners have pointed out that the demolition of their shops would not help in developing the market and even the width of the road would remain almost unchanged. They claim that their plots cannot be acquired without payment of compensation or taking proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, that they have a fundamental right to hold their property, that the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954 (Act No. XXVII of 1954) (hereinafter called the Act has not been applied to the area in question, and that the officers who issued the three impugned notices had no authority under the law to do so. The petitioners have further pointed out that in view of the peremptory nature of the notices they are not in a position to seek redress by means of a regular civil suit. A joint written statement has been filed by the respondents. They have pointed out that the land in question is Government land which was managed and controlled by the Hanumangarh Municipal Board under the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipal Act, 1951 and was let out to the petitioners for temporary use under the "teh Bazari Rules". Under these Rules, it has been pointed out, no permanent structure could be created on the plots, and the occupants could not acquire any right and they were liable to eviction at any time on a demand form the Municipality. Further, it has been pointed out that the Act has been made applicable to the area of the Hanumangarh Municipality by notification (Ex. 17; No. F. 22 (12) Rev. A/50 dated May 31, 1955, that the powers of the Collector under that Act have been conferred on the Director of Colonisation, and that the powers of the Municipal Board to lease or sell Government land in 'abadi' area have been withdrawn on February 2, 1959 by a notification of the Government. It has therefore been contended that the land in question no longer remained under the control of the Municipality. Further, it has been pointed out that the permission which was granted in favour of the petitioner to occupy the land, came to an end in 1954, that it is not a fact that all of them have built 'pakka' structures on their plots and that they could not claim any proprietary right over the land in contravention of the provisions of the Jaw. The continued occupation of the plots by the petitioners after 1954 has been characterised as unauthorised on the ground that the Municipality could not realise rent thereafter and there was, at any rate, no conscious decision of the Board to do so The petitioners' claim that they are lessees or statutory tenants has been disputed. The notices for eviction have been justified on the ground that the Hanumangarh Junction Mandi is being developed to cope with an anticipated population of one lakh and to establish a fertiliser factory as also to widen the approach to road to the Railway Station. It would thus appear that there is practically no dispute so far as the basic facts of the case are concerned. It is admitted by the parties that the Hanumangarh Municipal Board was constituted several years ago, that its boundaries were redefined by notification (Ex. 2) dated July 3, 1944 which included wards Nos. 8 and 9 in which the plots in question were allotted to the petitioners, that the Municipal Board made the allotment from 1947 onwards under the "teh Bazari Rules", that some 'pakka' and 'kacha' shops have been constructed on those plots, that the permission to use the plots was renewed in the petitioners' favour by the Municipality upto 1954, that the petitioners have paid the rent upto March 31, 1960 and even thereafter, and that the three notices (Exs. 9, 10 and 12) have been given to them to remove their structures from the plots on pain of demolition by the State. While these facts are admitted, an affidavit dated May 11, 1961 has been filed on behalf of the respondents taking the further plea that the plots in question are situated in old khasra no. 63 of village Dabarwala according to the 'jamabandi' and the index map, and that village Dabarwala, including khasra no. 63, was brought within the purview of the Act by the notification dated May 31, 1955, referred to above. Therefore, the main point which falls for decision in this case is whether the Act has been extended to the area of the Hanumangarh Municipality. It is not in dispute that the relevant notification in that respect is No. F. 22 (12) Rev. A/50 dated May 31, 1955 (Ex. 17 ). It has been argued by Mr. Rastogi on behalf of the petitioners that this subsequent affidavit of the respondents (May 11, 1961) should be ruled out of consideration because they had not taken the plea in their written statement that the area of the Hanumangarh Municipality fell in Khasra No, 63 of Dabarwala village according to the revenue record. Further, it has been argued that the boundaries of the Municipal Board were defined as far back as 1944 by notification Ex. 2 and that the municipal area never became a colony under the Act. This argument is sought to be supported by reference to a certified copy of the map defining the area of the Municipality. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has argued that the notification dated May 31, 1955 referred only to village according to the revenue record and that the character of a village for purposes of the revenue law could not undergo a change simply by establishing a Municipal Board in a village or a group of villages. As a further argument, learned Govt. Advocate has contended that "janglat Hanumangarh" was a separate village by itself, because Hanumangarh Town did not exist as such in the revenue record, and that the mention of that village in the notification dated May 31, 1955 had the effect of transferring the entire area to the control of the colonisation authorities. A perusal of the notification dated May 31, 1955 shows that there is no mention in it of Hanumangarh town or village, nothing to say of the Hanumangarh Municipality. Dabarwala village his been mentioned at serial No. 57 of the schedule to that notification but we are unable to think that the village could possibly cover the area of the Hanumangarh Municipality. It is true that the area now forming the Hanumangarh Municipality at one time formed part of Dabarwala village; but after the constitution of the Municipality it has a distinct entity of its own and is known as Hanumangarh town. Nothing has been shown that in the revenue records it still continues to be described as village Dabarwala, which, in our opinion, after the constitution of Municipality must be taken to refer to the area of the village outlying the Municipal limits. If the mere mention of Dabarwala could extend the provisions of the Act to the whole of Hanumangarh on the basis of the earlier revenue record there was no necessity to mention "janglat Hanumangarh" separately at serial No. 68 of the notification. It is also significant that the learned Government Advocate has not been able to contend or substantiate by evidence that "janglat Hanumangarh" was also a separate village according to the revenue record. In fact, the mention of the prefix "janglat" shows that it were only the forests, or the adjoining land of Hanumangarh, which were brought under the control of the Act, and not the municipal area. We are therefore not persuaded to hold that the Municipal area of Hanumangarh was brought under the control of the colonisation authorities by the notification dated May 31, 1955 which only refers to village Dabarwala and Janglat Hanumangarh and not to Hanumangarh itself. The provisions of the Act were therefore not attracted. Another argument of Mr. Rastogi is that the power of re-entry under sec. 22 of the Act could be exercised only by the Collector. The term "collector" has been defined in sec. 2 (1) of the Act to mean the Collector of the district and includes (a) any officer appointed by the State Government to perform all or any of the functions and exercise all or any of the powers of the Collector under the Act and (b) any officer appointed before or after the commencement of the Act for purposes of colonisation. Learned Government Advocate has not been able to show that the Tehsildar Colonisation, Secretary Bhakra Mandi Development Board, and the Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation, had been appointed "collector" within the meaning of sec. 2 (1) of the Act so as to give to them the authority to proceed under its provisions for purpose of re-entry on the lands in dispute. Besides, before taking any steps for re-entry the legislation requires that the Collector has to be satisfied that that the person in possession of land in the colony has no right or title thereto. In this case a preliminary objection has been raised that the petitioners have no right to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for the issuance of a writ. Even assuming that the petitioners were licensees of the lands in question, there can be no doubt that they have admittedly their structures and shops standing on the land, both 'kacha' and 'pakka' and the threat to demolish their structures certainly affects their valuable rights which entitles them to secure a mandate from this Court. For the above reasons, it must be held that the Tehsildar Colonisation, the Secretary, Bhakra Mandi Development Board and the Deputy Commissioner, Colonisation, had no authority under the notification dated May 31, 1955 (Ex. 17) to give the impugned notices to the petitioners to vacate their plots. No other notice or order has been relied on by the learned Government Advocate to show that the provisions of the Act had been made applicable to the area of the Hanumangarh Municipality. The notices are therefore without jurisdiction and have to be quashed. The learned counsel for the parties have addressed us at some length about the powers of a Municipal Board to grant leases or licenses of lands falling within its jurisdiction and the learned Government Advocate has referred also to* certain orders of Government restricting those powers in respect of Government lands ; but we do not feel called upon to consider that aspect of the matter because we have reached the conclusion that the impugned notices have, at any rate, to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with costs, the notices dated March 30, 1960, October 6-8, 1960 and March 17, 1961 are quashed and the rule is made absolute; hearing fee Rs. 100/ -. .;