- (1.) Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice dated 05.05.2014 issued by the respondent No.2, and also the order dated 03.11.2014 passed by the respondent No.1 upholding the notice dated 05.05.2014. The petitioner has also sought direction against the respondents to hand-over the possession of the shop in question to the petitioner.
(2.) As per the case of the petitioner, a lease deed was executed by the Municipal Board, Dholpur in favour of the petitioner with respect to the piece of land in question admeasuring 20 x 10 Sq. feet, situated at Dhoolkot Road, Dholpur on 07.01.1974 and the same was registered on 24.01.1974. The petitioner had constructed a shop thereon. According to the petitioner, though the said lease deed was for 7 years, it was impliedly extended by the Municipal Board till 1997-1998 by accepting the annual rent from the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner had applied for the extension but there was no response from the respondents. Ultimately, the petitioner sought to submit rent in the year 2013, but the same was not accepted by the respondents, and the petitioner was issued with the impugned notice dated 05.05.2014 calling upon him to handover the possession of the shop/land in question within three days. It is further case of the petitioner that, thereafter, the shop of the petitioner was seized by the respondent No.2 on 12.05.2014. The petitioner had, therefore, filed appeal before the respondent No.1 however, the said appeal was dismissed vide the order dated 03.11.2014.
(3.) The petition has been resisted by the respondents by filing the reply contending inter alia that the lease period having already expired in the year 1981, the petitioner had become an unauthorized occupant. It is also contended that the application of the petitioner dated 25.08.2013 for deposit of the outstanding rent amount was not accepted by the respondents, as per the notice dated 5.5.2014 the petitioner was required to handover possession of the shop/land in question. It is also contended that the Additional Director, Local Self Government vide letter dated 21st August, 2013 had directed the respondent No.2 that in the cases where the period of lease deed had expired, the same would be sold by auction for a period of 99 years and in view of the said decision, the petitioner was dispossessed and the land in question was put to auction as per the said instructions.;