SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) The instant bunch of writ petitions involves common question of facts and law and is thus being decided together by this single order.
(2.) These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred to challenge individual identical show cause notices dated 10.10.2013 issued to the petitioners by the Municipal Council, Bhilwara calling upon the petitioners to remove the encroachments in form of shops allegedly made by the petitioners on the land owned by a public trust named Sarvajanik Sampati Trust, Bhilwara.
(3.) The petitioners are doing business for the last nearly 50 years at the shops in question which they claim as rented out to them/ their predecessors in title by the Trust. The trust in question was created in the year 1940 during the rule of the erstwhile State of Mewar and was also registered under the Societies Registration Act. After coming into force of the Registration Public Trust Act, 1959, the trust was re-registered thereunder. The trust runs a school in the name of Gopal Chhatrawas. The petitioners claim that in order to meet the expenses of the Gopal Chhatrawas, the trust constructed the shops in question and rented them out to the petitioners. The petitioners are regularly paying the rent of the shops to the trust. The petitioners claim that in the year 1968, some of the shops were extended upto the main road by covering a naala falling in between and the said extension was regularised vide order dated 15.04.1968. However, to their utter surprise and detriment of the petitioners, the Municipal Council, Bhilwara issued them the impugned notices in identical terms directing them to remove the encroachments allegedly made by the petitioners on public trust property. These notices are assailed in this bunch of writ petitions. The language of the verbatim proforma notices is relevant for deciding the controversy and is thus being reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference:;