JASRAJ CHOPRA, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Asgar Khan has prayed for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent Municipal Council, Udaipur to regularise his possession over the land in dispute and not to interfere with his possession over it.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he being unemployed and without any work, his financial position became critical and, therefore, he has put up a temporary cabin on the Panchsheel Marg, Surajpole Road, Udaipur so that he may earn his livelihood. This Cabin was installed somewhere in the month of June 1988. Thereafter, he moved an application (Annexure -1) alongwith a map (Annexure -2) for the aforesaid land being given to him on rent on 12.10.1988 and on that application, he was allowed to use this land temporarily for a period of three months from 13.9.1989 to 12.12.1989 by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Udaipur. A sum of Rs. 90/ - were deposited by him vide receipt Annexure -5 as rent for three months starting from 13.9.1989 to 12.12.1989. He also obtained electric connection in his cabin. According to him, near his cabin, other constructions i.e. a Cabin and a Petrol Pump also exist. On the back side of his cabin, a cabin has been put up by New Haryana Handloom and for the use of that land, a licence has also been granted by the Municipal Council, Udaipur in favour of New Haryana Handloom. The petitioner has contended that on his application Annexure -1, no formal order has been passed by the Municipal Council, Udaipur. However, there appeared a new item in the local news paper 'Pratahkal' that the Municipal Council, Udaipur has requisitioned Police Force for the removal of illegally set up Cabins and on enquiries, it was revealed to him that his cabin is also amongst those cabins which deserve to be removed. According to him, denial to give this land on rent to the petitioner is violative of Articles 21 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Although the Constitution of India does not guarantee the right to work but the Preamble of the Constitution sets such a goal. The petitioner's right of livelihood stands guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, nothing should be done to jeopardise his right to livelihood. It was contended that although the Constitution does not positively recognise that right i.e. right to work but that right is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution. The squatting on this land is not at all injurious to public interest and, therefore, it should not be allowed to disturb and should be regularised by issuing a licence or lease of this land in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) I have heard Mr. M. Mridul, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the record of the case.;