- (1.) THIS is an application for revision under sec. 300 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 in respect of the appellate orders of the Additional Collector Kota, dated 30. 6. 62 dismissing the appeal of the applicant against the orders of the Municipal Council, Kota dated 7. 3. 62. By the said order of the Municipal Council, the non applicant Shri Krishnaji had been granted permission to construct a building on his piece of land in Kota Municipal area.
(2.) I have heard the counsel for the parties and have also carefully examined the record. A preliminary objection was raised by the Municipal Perokar that this application was incompetent since there was no provision for such a revision application under the Act of 1959. He argued that in the original Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act of 1951, Sec. 108 dealt with the question of construction of new buildings and sub-sec. (b) of sub-sec. (8) provided for a revision application to the Government and sub-sec. (d) of sub-sec. (8) also provided that the order of the revising authority shall be final. Under the new Municipalities Act of 1959 in the corresponding section which was 170, sub-sec. (14) provided that the order of the appellate authority shall be final and there was no provision for a revision. He, therefore, contended that the present application for revision was not provided under the law. In reply the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the provision in sec. 300 of the Act of 1959 was comprehensive and that the deletion in new Act of the provision as it existed in the Act of 1951 did not preclude the powers of the Court in entertaining an application in its revisional jurisdiction. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the counsel. It is pertinent to point out here that even when there was provision for an application for revision by a party in sub-sec. (b) of sub-sec. (8) of sec. 108 of the Rajasthan Town Municipalities Act, 1951 there was provision for revision to Government under sec. 210 of that Act. That provision corresponds to sec. 300 in the new Act of 1959. The ommission of the provision for revision in the now Act under sec. 170 would not take away the supervisory control vested in the Government under sec. 300. This provi-sion gives the Government very far reaching and wide powers and the exercise of such powers is not fettered by the deletion of the provision in sec. 108. It may be that in the 1951 Act the provision in sec. 108 (8) (b) was felt to be redundant in view of the provision which existed in sec. 210. But it cannot by any means be interpreted that simply because such a corresponding provision has not been made in the new Act of 1958, revisional powers in respect of the matters decided under sec. 108 whereby the appellate orders are held to be final have been intended to be taken away from the Government. In fact, the provisions in sec. 108 dealt with the rights of parties and it is clear that so far as the parties arc concerned, (he appellate orders in a proceeding under that section are final and that the party is not given a specific right of application for revision. But the revisional jurisdiction here is exercised by virtue of sec. 300 which is a matter between the two Courts concerned, namely the record reverse or modify such order. Therefore, clearly the powers envisaged under Sec. 300 which correspond to the provision of sec. 210 in the old Act of 1951 are far wider than the provision which previously existed in sec. 108 (8) (b) of the 1951 Act. This court exercises powers of the Government under sec. 300 of the Act of 1959 and 1 therefore hold that the present application for revision is competent. So far as the merits of the application are concerned, there is nothing much to be said. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I, therefore, do not see that the applicant has really any valid grounds for making objections. It seems that the relations between the parties are strained and therefore frivolous objections are being raised which have been examined on the spot by both the Municipal authorities and also by the Additional Collector, who has held that the objections raised were not sustainable. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere in this matter by way of revision. The application is rejected. .;