G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) SINCE common questions of law were involved, I have accepted the joint request of both the parties to hear and decide all these seven cases by a common judgment.
(2.) THESE are seven writ petitions filed by the industrialists of Pali against the auction of the land by the respondents. The petitioner's case is that in the industrial area of Pali they were allotted various plots, the measurements and specifications of which have been given in the lease-deeds annexed with the writ petitions. According to the petitioners the respondents No. 1 and 2 now want to illegally curtail a strip of ten meters land adjacent to the road which is known as Madia Road, Pali. The petitioners rely upon clause No. 1 of the lease deed in which on the northern side a road has been shown. This road, according to the petitioners is Mandia road. It is contended that the respondents are bound by the boundaries shown in the lease deed clause (1) and they cannot usurp any land between the road and the plot allotted to the petitioners and auction it. Mr. Parekh submitted that the respondents cannot be allowed to violate the lease deed and petitioner's fundamental right to do business and industry in these particular plots are being violated. It was also submitted that the right to hold property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution is also being violated by alleged auction of land by the respondents. The respondents no. 1 and 2 have contested the writ petition. Mr. Singhvi appearing for the contested respondent no. 1, has pointed out that each one of the lease-deed is accompanied by a site-plan. According to Mr. Singhvi the very plan submitted by the petitioner in each of the cases along with the writ petition would show that on the northern side between the plots of the petitioners and the Madia road there is open land which is not in the boundaries of the plots allotted to the petitioners. It was also argued that the allotment orders expressly mentioned it but the petitioner has suppressed them and produced only lease deeds. Mr. Singhvi submitted that the respondents have decided to keep a passage of 3 to 4 meters in between the land which they are going to auction and the plots of the petitioners, and the petitioners will have no difficulty or problem of way and in taking any conveyance inside their plots. Mr. Singhvi gave an undertaking for the same. Mr. Pareekh on the contrary pointed out the proceedings of the meeting dated 21. 9. 78 in which at item no. 3 it has been mentioned that in the plots of industrial area No. 3 the roads requires minor alterations. It was mentioned here that earlier the main road land of 10 meter was left vacant but many of the plot-holders have not left it and that has created disparity and inequality. It was decided that in these circumstances those plot holders who are anxious may be allotted some land in front of them for which the rates may be fixed by R. M. & D. C.
(3.) MR. Hastimal has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Privy Council, The Palestine Kupat Am Bank Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. Government of Palestine (1 ). Head note A of which reads as under : "in construing a grant of land a description by fix boundaries is to be preferred to a conflicting description by area. The statement as to area is to be rejected as false demonstration. " Reliance has also been placed on another judgment of this Court Partumal vs. Managing Officer, Jaipur (2 ). According to Mr. Parekh his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (i) (g) and constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300 A have been violated by the alleged action of the non-petitioners. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record produced by them and specifically the lease deed and orders, the plans of the industrial areas concerned containing the relevant plots, and more particularly the Madia Road and its surroundings shown therein. ;