- (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 9.8.96 passed by the Commissioner, Jaipur Division, Jaipur dismissing the appeal of the petitioner which was preferred against the order dated 21.3.96 passed by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The facts giving rise to this petition shortly lie in a narrow compass. It has been averred that the petitioner-Company purchased a piece of land situated at Ajimer Road, Jaipur from the respondents No. 3 to 6 on 5.6.95. The land is covered by a Pakka Boundary Wall and is popularly known as "Lila". It has been averred that after coming into force of the Act.the respondents No. 3 to 6 filed a statement under Section 6 of the Act before the Competent Authority (respondent No. 1) and the Competent Authority vide order dated 6.4.95 declared 1437 sq.mtrs. of land as surplus. Against the aforesaid order, respondents No. 3 to 6 filed an appeal before the Commissioner. Jaipur Division, Jaipur and the Commissioner. Jaipur Division. Jaipur decreeing the land as surplus rejected the appeal vide order dated 13.11.95. After dismissal of the appeal a Notification as contemplated under Section 10(1) of the Act was issued by the Competent Authority by means of which, the objections from interested persons were invited, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. After issuance of notification the petitioner-Company filed objection before the Competent Authority-respondent No.l. It is alleged that the Competent Authority vide order dated 21.3.96 rejected the contention of the petitioner-Company and increased the area of excess vacant land from 1437 sq.mtrs to 2176.85 sq. mtrs. The petitioner-Company feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, preferred appeal before the Commissioner. Jaipur Division, Jaipur which was rejected on 9.8.96. Feeling aggrieved against the order dt. 9.8.96, the petitioner has approached this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.
(2.) I have heard Mr. G.G. Sharma Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The main thrust of the argument of Mr. G.G. Sharma is that the land in question was recorded as agriculture and in revenue record at the material date and since the land was not urban, the same could not have been declared as surplus under the provisions of the Act. Mr. Sharma rightly and frankly admitted that the respondents No. 3 to 6 did not raise objection that the land in question was agriculture land and as such was not liable to be declared surplus under the provisions of the Act. Learned Counsel also contended that the respondents No. 3 to 6 concealed the fact that the land in question has been declared surplus under the provisions of the Act. Learned Counsel vehemently urged that since the land was recorded as agriculture land the same could not have been declared surplus. In view of the fact that the owner of the surplus and land has not raised any objection regarding the nature of the land and the order passed by the Competent Authority having become final. I am of the opinion that it is not open to the petitioner to raise such objection. Mr. Sharma lastly contended that the petitioner Company has been deceived by the respondents No. 3 to 6 inasmuch as. they concealed the fact that the land was declared surplus and sold the same in favour of the petitioner. That too cannot be a ground for entertainment of writ petition by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case, the petitioner-Company has been deceived by the respondents No. 3 to 6, it is open for him to initiate civil/criminal proceedings as advised.
(3.) The petition fails and stands disposed at the admission stage itself with the observations made above.;