1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2837/2004 Akhil Bhartiya Pustikar Sewa Parishad Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 28th January 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. N.L.Joshi ] Mr. R.K.Bohra ], for the petitioner. Ms. Prathistha Dave, Government Counsel. Mr. D.S.Rajvi, for the respondent No.3. ..... Aggrieved of the order dated 11.06.2004 (Annex.23) passed by the Director, Local Bodies staying the proceedings adopted by the Municipal Board, Suratgarh for allotment of a piece of land to the petitioner-Institution, this writ petition was preferred with the submissions, inter alia, that the petitioner- Institution was brought up by the inhabitants of Pushkarana community belonging to Suratgarh for the upliftment, improvements, eradication of social evils, and promotion of education; that the petitioner-Institution having no land at Suratgarh made a request to the Municipal Board, Suratgarh for the purpose and thereupon, the Municipal Board passed a resolution on 31.12.2002 deciding to allot a piece of land admeasuring 100' x 150' at Suratgarh under Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974; that the Municipal Board also recommended to the Director, Local Bodies for extending concession for such 2 allotment of 25% of the reserve price by the letter dated 22.01.2003; and that certain objections too were removed. The petitioner submitted that it made a request to the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board to get deposited 50% of the reserve price under the letter dated 27.05.2004 and the Chairman of the Municipal Board addressed a communication to the Director, Local Bodies for according sanction therefor; and that the Director, Local Bodies authorised the respondent Municipal Board to take a decision on its own in the matter and returned the file. The petitioner averred that while the proceedings for allotment were underway, a local MLA intervened in the matter and sought stay over the proceedings by misleading the Hon'ble Minister and thereupon, the Director, Local Bodies proceeded to stay the matter under the impugned order dated 11.06.2004. Shorn of other details, suffice is to notice that during the course of hearing of this writ petition, the proposition for allotment of alternative piece of land was considered; and after hearing the parties for some time, this Court passed the following order on 11.02.2008:- “After arguments at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is still ready to take alternative plot of land at 50% of reserve price of the rates prevailing in the year 2002 when the plot No. 5 originally allotted to them was allotted to the respondent no.4. He fairly submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit such 50% of reserved price prevailing in the year 2002 with the Municipal Council, Suratgarh, 3 respondent No.3 and thereafter the respondent No.3 may consider and allot such alternative plot of land in lieu of original plot No.5 allotted to them. Accordingly, the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the reserve price of the year 2002 of the alternative plot now proposed to be given to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today and upon deposit of said amount subject to decision of this writ petition, the respondent No.3 shall take a decision in the matter and place the same before the Court by way of additional affidavit. If necessary, the approval of the State Government for such allotment at 50% of the reserve price shall also be obtained by the respondent No.3. Put up on 17th March, 2008 as prayed.” On 17.03.2008, it was informed on behalf of the petitioner that 50% of the reserve price as directed had been deposited and it was also informed by the counsel for the respondent Municipal Board, Suratgarh that on 15.03.2008, a proposal to allot alternative plot to the petitioner had been forwarded to the State Government for approval. The parties were directed to place the requisite documents on record with affidavits and when it was pointed out on the subsequent dates that the sanction from the State Government was awaited, the learned counsel for the respondent was directed to place the progress of the matter on record. Thereafter, on 16.10.2008, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the matter was still pending with the State Government and placed for perusal a photostat of the communication dated 04.07.2008 as emanating from the 4 Assistant Legal Remembrancer (ALR) in the Directorate of the Local Self Department, Jaipur putting questions to the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, Suratgarh as to under whose order the compliance of the interim order passed by the High Court was carried out, as to whether any appeal was filed against the interim order, and what was the present position of the petition? Taking exception to the language of the communication aforesaid, suggestive as if compliance of an order passed by this Court would also depend on some other person's order, the learned Government Counsel was requested to take instructions and also to inform the present position and, when the Government Counsel informed that the matter was still pending with the Directorate, the respondents Nos.1 and 2 were called upon to clarify as to why the matter had remained pending at all ? Thereafter, on 24.10.2008, it was submitted by the Government Counsel that the decision had already been taken by the Government and the matter was essentially to be considered by the Municipal Board. Regrets were also expressed for the language of the communication aforesaid. In view of the aforesaid, when the matter was to be dealt with by the Municipal Board but was kept pending yet and further adjournment was sought on 09.01.2009, this Court expressed dissatisfaction over the manner of dealing of the 5 matter by the Municipal Board but, in the interest of justice, the last opportunity was extended to the Board to bring the matter to finality within two weeks; however, the adjournment was granted only after imposing costs of Rs.5,000/-, half to be paid to the petitioner and the remaining to be deposited in the legal aid while leaving it permissible for the Municipal Board to recover the amount of costs from the person/s responsible for causing delay in the matter. Today, alongwith an additional affidavit of the present Executive Officer of Municipal Board, Suratgarh, a copy of the resolution adopted by the Municipal Board in its meeting dated 15.01.2009 has been placed on record whereby alternative piece of land has been allotted to the petitioner. It is also stated that after such resolution, requisite lease deed has been executed by the Municipal Board on 23.01.2009 and a copy of such lease deed has also been placed on record wherefrom it appears that a piece of land admeasuring 19,250 sq.ft. has been allotted to the petitioner in Ward No.17, Suratgarh. Learned counsel for the respondent Municipal Board Mr. D.S. Rajvi has also pointed out that the amount of costs has been paid/deposited as required by the order passed by this Court and has shown photostat of the relevant documents in that regard. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that 6 nothing further survives in the matter for consideration and this petition is practically rendered infructuous. Learned Government Counsel Ms. Prathistha Dave appearing for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 while expressing regrets on the language of the communication dated 04.07.2008, has referred to the apology stated by the Assistant Legal Remembrancer, Local Self Department, Jaipur in his additional affidavit dated 16.10.2008 and has further submitted that in view of the observations made by this Court, an amount of Rs. 500/- has been deposited in legal aid today on behalf the said ALR; and has shown a photostat of the receipt thereof to the Court. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and for the regrets expressed and the matter having been concluded, it appears appropriate to close this matter at that only. The writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous. No further order as to costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK Mohan