Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Kishan Lal has approached this court for assailing the order Annex.7 dated 06.11.2013, whereby the Director, Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur accepted the revision preferred by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and set aside the order/No Objection Certificate issued by the Municipality, Pokran in favour of late Shri Chandrakant Rathi. The petitioner claims to be the caretaker of the disputed property reportedly 200 years old located in Pokran of which a portion was owned by Shri Chandrakant Rathi, who has since expired. During his lifetime Shri Chandrakant Rathi moved an application to the Executive Officer, Municipality, Pokran seeking NOC for selling his share in the disputed property. The said application submitted by Shri Chandrakant Rathi to the Municipality, Pokran was accepted and a NOC dated 12.08.2009 was issued in his favour, whereby the Municipality conveyed that it did not have any objection to the property being sold. It is also admitted that subsequent to the said NOC being issued, the property has been sold through a registered sale deed in favour of Shri Ashok Kumar and Rajendra Kumar. The private respondents herein have challenged the said sale deed executed by late Shri Chandrakant Rathi in the civil court by filing a civil suit, which is reportedly pending consideration. The respondents herein also challenged the NOC dated 12.08.2009 granted by the Municipality, Pokran in favour of Shri Chandrakant Rathi by filing a revision before the Director, Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. In the said revision, the petitioner herein as well as Shri Chandrakant apart from the Executive Officer, Municipality, Pokran were impleaded as party respondents. During pendency of the revision, Shri Chandrakant passed away. Thus, the petitioner herein moved an application Annex.5 under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC stating that Shri Chandrakant had passed away and since no application was moved for brining on record his legal representatives, thus, the proceedings abated. Despite being apprised of this material development, the private respondents (revisionists) did not take any steps to bring on record the legal representatives of Shri Chandrakant in the revision. Furthermore the subsequent purchaser of the property was also not impleaded as party respondent in the revision. The revisional authority, however, without considering and deciding the application preferred under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC proceeded to allow the revision by order Annex.7 dated 06.11.2013, which is challenged in the instant writ petition. The authority observed in its order that the Municipality had no powers to decide proprietary rights over the disputed property and as such there was no occasion for it to have issued an administrative order so as to confer such right upon Shri Chandrakant.
(2.) Shri Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel representing the petitioners, has, alongwith the rejoinder, filed a notification dated 28.06.1991 issued by the Registration Department, Government of Rajasthan, as per which, the local bodies have been authorized to issue a declaration regarding the right to transfer a property in favour of the owner thereof after ascertaining the dues of such body in relation to the property in question. Manifestly, thus, the declaration which the Municipality issued in favour of Shri Chandrakant was not in the form of a document conferring title, but merely communicated that the Municipality did not have any dues over the property in question and thus, it did not have any objection to the sale thereof.
(3.) Be that as it may, since the revisional authority accepted the revision and set aside the said NOC, the petitioner, who was a party respondent in the revision, has approached this court by way of the instant writ petition for challenging the order dated 06.11.2013 (Annex.7).;