- (1.) THESE two revision petitions will be disposed of by this common order as they are directed against the same order of the Addl. Collector, Jaipur dated 12-10-66 whereby he accepted the application of the non-petitioner challenging the sale of the disputed land and the sanction issued by the Municipal Council u/s 283 of the Raj. Municipalities Act with the direction that the matter may be re-decided after inspecting the site in the presence of the contesting parties and examining the question whether the land could be sold to the petitioner and if so, at what price.
(2.) WHILE passing the above order it was observed by the learned Addl. Collector that earlier the Municipal Commissioner had rejected a similar application of the petitioner on the ground that the land in question fell in a slum clearance area and the land was not open for sale until the master plan was ready. It was found by the Collector that while issuing the impugned sanction, no reference had been made to the previous refusal. The Addl. Collector was further doubtful about the value of the land as assessed by the Municipal Commissioner. He felt that it might as well exceed Rs. 500/- in which case the sale by allotment was not permissible by the Municipal Council. The impugned order has been attacked by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the learned Addl. Collector has erred in invoking the aid of Sec. 283 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act. It is also argued that the Municipal Council was fully within its jurisdiction to sell by allotment the disputed land as its value was less than Rs. 500/-. To take the second argument first, we may reproduce the provisions of Sec. 80 (1) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act as below: - Provisions relating to contracts: (1) Every board shall be competent subject to the restrictions contained in sub-section (2) to lease, sell or otherwise transfer any movable or immovable property which it may have, for the purpose of this Act, to enter into and perform all such contracts as it may consider necessary or expedient in order to carry into effect the said provisions and purposes: Provided that, subject to the rules made by the State Govt. in this behalf, no Govt. land which has become vested in a board under clause (3) of subsection (2) of Sec. 92 shall be sold, leased or otherwise transferred except with the approval of the Collector if the value of such land exceeds five hundred rupees in the case of a city or two hundred rupees in the case of any other municipality or if the sale, lease or other transfer thereof is effected otherwise than by public auction in the prescribed manner. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the non-petitioner that proviso to Sec. 80 (1) clearly bars the sale of this land. For an interpretation of this clause he has drawn my attention to the rule laid down by Jagat Narain J. in Chothmal vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (AIR 1967 Rajasthan 179). According to this authority this proviso lays down that no Govt. land shall be sold, leased or otherwise transferred except with the approval of the Collector in the following cases: - (1) If the sale is by public auction then only in those cases approval will be necessary where the value of the land exceeds Rs. 500/- in the case of a city or Rs. 200/- in the case of any other municipality; (2) If the sale is otherwise than by public auction, then the approval is necessary in every case whatever the value of the land. The learned judge further observed that the above provision is mandatory firstly because it is couched in mandatory language and secondly because there is a public policy behind it. That policy is that the Collector should get an opportunity of examining whether the land is being sold or allotted in accordance with the rules prescribed by the State Government, that bigger plots are sold for adequate consideration and that land which should be sold by public auction is not being allotted without auction. I agree with the learned counsel for the non-petitioner that in view of this authority the right of sale of nazul land by the Municipal Council is strictly limited and although learned Collector has not specifically made a reference to this rule in his impugned order it is absolutely necessary to re-examine the question of the sale of the disputed land by allotment in the light of the observations made in the aforesaid authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the question whether the disputed land is nazul land or not. He has, however, not been able to show from record that this land is not nazul land. This matter too will naturally come up for examination daring the course of the investigation as ordered by the Addl. Collector. If the land is nazul land, it will attract the aforesaid rule with all its rigour. As regards the first objection that the Addl. Collector has no authority to interfere in this matter u/s 283 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner is on weaker ground. Sec. 283 (i) provides that any officer appointed or authorised by the State Govt. in this behalf by a general or special order shall have power: - (a)................. (b)................. (c) to require a board to take into consideration any objection which appears to him exist to the doing of anything which is about to be done or is being done by such board, or any information which he is able to furnish and which appears to him to necessitate the doing of a certain thing by the board and to make a written reply to him within a reasonable time stating its reasons for not desisting from doing or for not doing such thing. Vide notification No.F.4 (34) LSG/A/59 dated 13-11-59 the Collectors have been authorised to exercise the powers specified in the above sub-section. Accordingly, I fail to appreciate the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Collector lacked jurisdiction in issuing the impugned order. The first revision petition relates to the sale of land while the second revision petition relates to the sanction for the construction thereon and is, therefore, dependent on the first issue. I agree with the learned counsel for the non-petitioner that in remitting the case for re-enquiry, the Addl. Collector has committed no illegality and both the revision petitions, therefore, deserve to be rejected. I order accordingly.;