- (1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order of the Addl. Collector, Sikar dated 16-7-66 whereby he accepted the appeal of the non-applicant Govindram against the order of the Municipal Council, Sikar dated 17-6 65. By this order the Municipal Council had rejected the appeal of Govindram against the order of the Nazool Committee dated 30-12-63 allowing the applicants to make the disputed construction.
(2.) AS the impugned order shows this matter has had a long history. The applicants were found to be in unlawful occupation of municipal lands lying in front of their house in 1949. They were ordered to remove their unauthorised occupation by the order of the Administrator dated 29-5-49. Aggrieved by this order Narain filed an appeal before the Collector who rejected the same vide his order dated 2-9 50. On 17-10-50 the Inspector reported the removal of the unauthorised occupation. The matter appears to have lain dormant until 24-5-61 when Narain (father of the applicants) applied for the purchase of this land. On 26-5-62 the Nazool Committee ordered that Naraian may be asked to file an agreement that he will draw the patta of the land after the settlement of the price of the same. Having felt aggrieved by this order the non-applicant moved the Addl. Collector us 285 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. Having heard the contesting parties, the learned Addl Collector accepted the application and stayed the aforesaid order vide his order dated 4-7-62. This order was subsequently confirmed by the Govt. vide their order dated 2-7-63. The matter was not allowed to rest there. On another application having been filed by Narain's sons the Nazool Committee allowed the construction at the disputed land by the applicants vide order dated 30-12-63. This was followed by an appeal by Govindram before the Collector. A preliminary objection was raised before him by the respondents that u/s 77 (2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, the appeal should have been preferred by the appellant (present non-applicant Govind Ram) before the Municipal Council and no direct appeal lay before the Collector. The Collector accepted this preliminary objection and rejected the appeal. The appeal thus came to be heard by the Municipal Council who rejected the same and confirmed the order of the Nazool Committee dated 30 12-63 vide their order dated 17-6 65. This was followed by an appeal before the Collector who as stated above accepted the same. Hence this revision petition. The first objection raised before me is that the appeal before the Addl Collector was barred by limitation. I find that this point was duly raised before the Collector also but computing the time for taking the delivery of the copy into consideration, the Collector found the appeal within limitation. The second objection raised before me is that a copy of the Nazool Committee's order was not attached with the appeal before the Collector and, therefore, the appeal was not competent, having been filed in violation of Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual. I am not impressed by this argument, firstly because this objection should primarily have been taken before the lower court. Secondly, I note that this question came up for consideration before my learned predecessor in Milakraj vs. Municipal Council Ganganagar (RRD 1967 page 329) before whom the authority Sohanlal Chajulal vs. Bolia (1965 RRD page 17) was cited in support of this objection. But the learned Chairman rejected the same holding that this rule was not applicable to municipal cases but related to tenancy laws. I am not in agreement with this rule as I find that u/s 300 of the Municipalities Act the Chairman Board of Revenue acts as an authority authorised in this behalf by the State Govt. and not as a court. Thus while the principles of natural justice and rules of jurisprudence may be generally applicable to the functioning of this authority, yet minor deviations from the regulations governing the working of this Board may not be held to be fatal to the matters brought before this Board u/s 300 of the Municipalities Act. In this view of the matter, I see no substance id this objection. It has further been argued that the appeal before the Municipal Council against the order of the Nazool Committee as directed by the Collector was not competent as the Nazool Committee was exercising the powers of the Municipal Council. My attention was drawn to Sec. 311 of the Act which provides for an appeal against an order of an officer appointed u/s 307 or sec. 308 but makes no reference to the order of a committee. Referring to sec. 3 (8) it was argued that a committee of the Council exercises the powers of the Council and, therefore, its order was not appealable to the Municipal Council. In reply it has been stated by the learned counsel for the non-applicant that initially the non-applicant had filed an appeal before the Collector but an objection having been raised by the applicant (respondent in that case) about the maintainability of the appeal before the Collector, the Collector accepted the same and dismissed his appeal, thus leaving the non-applicant with no other option but to go in appeal before the Municipal Council. It was argued from this premise that it would be contrary to the principles of natural justice to throw him out of court on this ground, at this stage. I am inclined to accept this line of argument and hold that when the matter came to be heard by the Municipal Council on an appeal by the appellant against the order of the Nazool Committee in terms of the appellate order of the Collector dated 6-4-64, the order of the Nazool Committee may be deemed to have merged into the order of the Municipal Council dated 17 6-65 and, therefore, the subsequent appeal against that order before the Collector was valid. Thus I find no force in this contention of the learned counsel tor the applicant also. The last objection raised by the learned counsel for the applicants is that the non-applicant had no right of appeal. As the plan shows the non-applicant is the next door neighbour of the applicants and his right of easement definitely stands affected by the permission for construction granted to the applicants by the Municipal Council by its order dated 17-6-65. He has thus certainly a stake in the matter which cannot be lightly brushed aside. Of course, as the plan shows, the street here follows no regular alignment. Nevertheless, it is clear that the grant of permission to construct on the street as it exists at present, without following any well considered plan or alignment. is bound to result in avoidable annoyance and discomfort to the residents of the locality. In this context, a note may also be made of the order of the Government dated 2-7-63 confirming the order of the Addl. Collector, Sikar dated 4-7-62 u/s 285 on the application of the non-applicant whereby the permission for the constructio|n of a pucca boundary around the land lying in front of the applicants' house towards the north was stayed. I fail to appreciate how in the face of this clear order from the Government the Municipal Council proceeded to grant the permission to the applicants vide its order dated 17-6-65. To my mind, the Municipal Council could do so only after the Government order was vacated. The result of the foregoing discussion is that I see no force in this revision petition and hereby reject the same. .;