Ashok Kumar Rawal vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to regularize the plot measuring 15'x30' situated in Madari Mohalla, Behind Old Bus Stand, Sumerpur District Pali and restrain the respondent no.4 from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the plot in question.

It is inter alia claimed in the writ petition that the petitioner was in possession of plot of land for over 10 years, based on which the petitioner filed an application on 12/10/2006 seeking regularization of said possession. The application was rejected by order dated 22/6/2015 (Annex.7) by the Municipal Board, Sumerpur by observing that the plot in question was an open piece of land, which could not be regularized. Whereafter, the petitioner, continued to contest the said position and claimed to be entitled for regularization and again filed an application dated 26/10/2017 (Annex.9) in this regard and also filed processing charges. The report was sought in this regard, however, repeatedly it was indicated that the plot of land was open plot, which could not be regularized and the report dated 21/8/2019 (Part of Annex.16) was submitted by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board.

Whereafter, the said plot of land was put to auction as part of certain plots. The petitioner approached the respondents questioning the said auction, based on which the advertisement was amended and size of the plot was changed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to a map produced as Annex.21, made submissions that petitioner was in possession of the land in question since long and was entitled for regularization of the same. It is submitted that the action of the respondents in not regularizing the petitioner's possession, in the circumstances of the case, is not justified and, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.

Further submissions were made that though the petitioner had possession of the land in question along with a room, the same was wrongly demolished by the respondents and now the same is being called open plot which is not justified.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

In the first instance, when the petitioner filed application seeking regularization in the year 2006, a report was made and the prayer was rejected by indicating that the land in question was open land. Whereafter, again the petitioner applied and made attempts for regularization, when a detailed inquiry/factual report (Annex.16) was submitted by the Executive Officer inter alia observing that the respondents had removed illegal possession from the Govt. land within rules and on the Govt. land Patta cannot be issued. The photographs relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the plot in question (Annex.11) also clearly indicates open piece of land. The plea raised regarding demolishing of petitioner's construction by the respondents also does not appear to be correct looking to the material available on record.

Irrespective of above, the plea raised in the petition seeking regularization of illegal possession also cannot be countenanced.

In view of the above discussion, no case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out. There is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.