- (1.) THIS petition has been filed against the order dated 23.09.2011, passed by the Director, Local Self Government Department, Jaipur in pursuance of the order dated 30.04.2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.536/2000.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the order dated 23.09.2011 impugned in this writ petition is liable to be quashed and set aside in view of the said order being contrary to the direction of the Division Bench in DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.536/2000, decided on 30.04.2008 inasmuch as the Division Bench had directed that the matter with regard to allotment of strip of land to the respondent Nos.5 & 6 be decided on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. COUNSEL submits that the impugned order dated 23.09.2011 is not an order on merits as it does not reflect the legality or otherwise the allotment of strip of land to the respondent Nos.5 & 6 with reference to Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1974'). It is submitted that the allotment of strip of land to the respondent Nos.5 & 6 is contrary to the said rules of 1974 and this fact ought to have been considered by the Director, Local Self Government Department, Jaipur and adjudicated on merits. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 23.09.2011. A bare perusal of the order dated 23.09.2011 shows that the petitioner following the order dated 30.04.2008 passed in DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.536/2000 had made a statement before the Director, Local Self Government Department, Jaipur in the course of hearing before him that in the event the respondent Nos.5 & 6 were not to construct a boundary wall over the land in issue so as to obstruct the access of the customer to his tenanted medical shop (which is in the ownership of the respondent Nos.5 & 6), the petitioner would have no objection to the allotment of strip of land in issue to the respondent Nos.5 & 6. In view of the aforesaid statement of the petitioner before the Director, Local Self Government Department, Jaipur and taking into consideration that the lease-deed was yet to be issued, vide order dated 23.09.2011, the Director, Local Self Government Department, Jaipur has directed that the lease-deed be issued to the respondent Nos.5 & 6 with regard to the strip of land between the petitioner's tenanted shop in the ownership of the respondent Nos.5 & 6 and the road only after a proper inquiry and that before the issue of lease-deed, the respondent Nos.5 & 6 be required to file an affidavit / undertaking recording their irrevocable commitment to not make a wall on the strip of land in front of the shop rented out to the petitioner so as to cause any obstruction to the customers in accessing the said tenanted shop with the petitioner. The order dated 23.09.2011 is clearly an order passed on consent and it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to argue contrarily that the order ought to have been passed on merits with reference to the specific provisions of Rule 23 of the Rules of 1974. Even otherwise, the impugned order dated 23.09.2011 makes it clear that the lease-deed be issued to the respondent Nos.5 & 6 after a proper inquiry which without doubt entails the ensuring of compliance with Rule 23 of the Rules of 1974. Further, the petitioner is a tenant of the shop in the ownership of the respondent Nos.5 & 6 and does business out of the tenanted shop which is located near the strip of land in regard to which the allotment has been applied for to the respondent Nos.5 & 6 and is sought to be made by the Municipal Board, Kotputali. A reading of Rule 23 of the Rules of 1974, more particularly Sub-rule 2 thereof indicates that a person interested in a strip of land would only be a person whose property is adjacent to such a strip of land. Admittedly the petitioner does not have any land / property adjoining strip of land and consequently the petitioner is even otherwise not an interested / affected party and his locus to agitate a case on his own is doubtful. As far as the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is concerned that the strip of land constitutes a part of way / right of way, it is for the Municipal Board, Kotputali to ensure that the strip of land sought to be alloted to the petitioner is not part of a right of way or contrary to Rule 23 of the Rules of 1974. There is presumption with regard to the legality of the official acts and there is no material before this Court to hold to the contrary. Even the Director, Local Self Government Department, Jaipur has held that the lease-deed be issued to the respondent Nos.5 & 6 only after a proper inquiry. In view of the facts of the case, I am therefore not inclined to interfere in the writ petition. The writ petition is without force and the same is dismissed.
(3.) STAY application is also dismissed.;