Kishan Lal @APPELLANT@Hash Smt. Sire Kanwar

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.Â

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.

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).

Shri Bhandari, learned counsel representing petitioner, referred to the facts mentioned above and craved acceptance of the writ petition. He urged

that the private respondents have no locus to challenge the NOC issued in favour of Shri Chandrakant. They have already taken recourse of civil

proceedings for challenging the sale deed and that the Municipality was well within its jurisdiction to issue the NOC in question in favour of Shri

Chandrakant.Â

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Bhandari and urged that the petitioner has

no locus standi to file the instant writ petition. The Municipality had no power or jurisdiction to issue the NOC in question in favour of Shri

Chandrakant because a local body cannot confer proprietary rights in this manner. They, thus, implored the court to dismiss the writ petition.Â

However, upon a pertinent query being made, learned counsel representing the private respondents were unable to satisfy the court as to why the

revisional authority did not pass any order on the application for abatement moved by the petitioner upon death of Shri Chandrakant. They also dis

not dispute the fact that no attempt was made to bring the legal representatives of late Shri Chandrakant on record.Â

Shri N.K. Chandak, learned counsel representing the Municipality, supported Shri Bhandari’s arguments and urged that issuance of the NOC is

absolutely essential to ascertain that there exists no dues of the Municipality regarding the property in question. The NOC does not confer any

proprietary rights and simply conveys that the Municipality would not have any objection to the property being sold and that it does not have any lien

thereupon.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned orders as well as other material

placed on record. The notification dated 28.06.1991, which is placed on record with the rejoinder reads as below :-

Øekda ,Q&7 ¼351½ tu@5330&5710 ifji=  fnukda 28-6-91 vf/klwpuk Øekad ,Q&2¼9½ foRr@xzqi&4@88 fnukad 10-1-90 ds }kjk

jktdh; ,oa LFkkuh; fudk;ksa dks Hkwfe ds ys[;i=ksa dks yksd uhfr ds fo:) ?kksfâ€kr fd;k x;k gS vr% vpy lEifRr;ksa ds ys[;i=ksa dk iath;u djus ls iqoZ

fuâ€iknd ls lkns dkxt ij ;g ?kksâ€k.kk i= fy;k tkos fd gLrkUrfjr dh tkus okyh lEifRr ljdkjh ljdkjh vFkok LFkkuh; fudk; dh ugha gS rFkk mls gLrkUrj.k

djus dk gd fuâ€iknd dks izkIr gSA mDr ?kksâ€k.kk i= ds fcuk fdlh vpy lEifRr ds gLrkUrj.k ds nLrkost dk iath;u ugha fd;k tkosA ;fn fujh{k.k ds nkSjku

?kksâ€​k.kk i= ds fcuk ys[;i= dk iath;u gksuk ik;k x;k rks blds fy;s iath;u vf/kdkjh ds fo:) dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsxhA ?kksâ€​k.kk i= dk izk:i layXu gSA

vfrfjDr egkfujh{kd iath;u ,oa eqnzkad foHkkx] jktLFkku] vtesj

Manifestly, thus, by this notification, the Director General, Registration and Stamps Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur mandated that a

declaration be taken from the seller of property on a plain paper regarding the property being sold not being under the ownership of local body

concerned. Clearly, the NOC Annex.3, which is the bone of contention between the parties is in consonance with such notification and did not confer

any proprietary rights upon the applicant. It may be stated here that the said NOC was issued after publication of a notice inviting objections.Â

Simple description of the property was given, the registration number of the property in the house tax register was referred to and thereafter it was

certified that the Municipality did not have any objection to the property being sold. Manifestly, thus, issuance of the NOC does not suffer from any

illegality or infirmity whatsoever. The revisional authority, during pendency of the revision, was apprised by the petitioner through the application

under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC that Shri Chandrakant Rathi, the original applicant before the Municipality, had passed away and thus, the revision had

abated. Thus, any order to the detriment of Chandrakant’s successors could not have been passed without bringing them on record.Â

However, despite being informed, the respondents did not take any steps to bring the legal representatives of Shri Chandrakant on record, nor did the

revisional authority consider and decide the application. Indisputabely, the revisional procedure is governed by CPC and thus, the revision abated on

account of non-bringing of legal representatives of Shri Chandrakant on record.Â

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 06/11.11.2013 (Annex.7) passed by the

Director, Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur suffers from gross illegality and perversity and thus, cannot be sustained. As a

result, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order Annex.7 dated 06/11.11.2013 is quashed and set aside. However,

it is made clear that none of the observations made hereinabove shall be construed to be conferring any right upon either of the parties to the

proceedings. Such rights shall be decided by the civil court, where the suit is said to be pending.

No order as to cost.