Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) The petitioner, having been allotted 12' x 8' size strip of land in front of his house by the Municipal Council, Udaipur but having been denied permission to raise construction on this strip under the orders/communications dated 10.10.2007 (Annex. 4) and 23.01.2008 (Annex.5); and the appeal taken by him having been dismissed by the Collector, Udaipur on 06.05.2008 (Annex.7); and further, the revision petition filed by him having been dismissed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur on 23.08.2008 (Annex.9), seeks to question the orders aforesaid by way of this writ petition.
(2.) From the averments as taken in the writ petition and the material as placed on record, it appears that the petitioner has a residential house at Maldas Street, Udaipur and the said strip of land, admeasuring 12' x 8' in front of the house, was allotted to him by the respondent Municipal Council, Udaipur after charging Rs. 1,10,000/- towards premium and Rs. 55,000/- towards lease amount; and a lease deed was executed in his favour on 25.10.2004 (Annex.1). The petitioner filed a civil suit bearing No. 85/2006 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Udaipur City (North), Udaipur for perpetual injunction with the averments that after purchasing the said strip, he had enclosed the same by a boundary wall but then, certain objections were raised and the Collector, Udaipur proceeded to instruct the Municipal Council to cancel the said lease deed. It was asserted that the petitioner was a lawful purchaser of the strip in question and the defendants were not entitled to interfere with the same or to obstruct its use and occupation by the petitioner-plaintiff. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit so filed by the petitioner on 21.12.2006 while issuing injunction to the following effect:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...
(3.) It appears further that the petitioner applied for permission to raise construction with projections on the said strip of land but such a prayer was declined by the Municipal Council by way of its communication dated 10.10.2007 (Annex.4) with the observations that the Committee concerned, after visiting the site on 09.08.2007, found the boundary wall having been raised covering excess land; and was of opinion that raising any construction by the petitioner would be creating obstruction in the chowk and disturbing the building line. The petitioner addressed a communication with reference to the decree of the Civil Court and asserted that he could not be deprived of the use of the land in question nor the sale could be cancelled; and that the communication of the Municipal Council was nothing less than disobedience of the order passed by the Court. The Municipal Council, in its communication dated 23.01.2008 (Annex.5), while admitting the fact that the Court had granted perpetual injunction in the matter wherefor the sale could not be cancelled and the petitioner could use the strip of land, asserted that so far the question of construction permission was concerned, the decision as taken by the Building Committee on 09.08.2007 after site inspection was proper and there was no reason to review the same nor there were any such directions of the Court. The Municipal Council said-;