1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7493/2009 Bhanwari Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 29thJuly 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. S.D. Vyas, for the petitioner. .... BY THE COURT Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court does not feel persuaded to entertain this matter further in the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has averred that earlier a writ petition had been filed by herself through Sadulganj Kachchi Basti Vikas Samiti, being CWP No.1131/1992(A), wherein an order was passed by this Court on 29.10.1996, directing the respondents to consider the matter of regularisation. While elaborating on the subject matter of the said former writ petition, the petitioner has referred to the averments therein that the petitioner Samiti was constituted to agitate the matter before the Court against the illegal action of the respondents where they intended to demolish the construction raised by members of petitioner Samiti; that such members were residing at Sadulganj, Kachchi Basti, Bikaner for last more than 30 years; that there had been various circulars issued by the Government for 2 regularisation of Kachchi Basti; and that the area occupied by the members of the Samiti had been declared a Kachchi Basti by the Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner (‘the U.I.T.’) in the year 1974. With reference to the circulars issued by the Government for regularisation of Kachchi Basti, it was submitted that the concerned persons were allowed to fill-up the forms for regularisation but the matter regarding regularisation remained pending for more than 8 years. The grievance was stated in the said writ petition in the manner that the U.I.T. and the Collector, Bikaner had started demolishing the constructed houses of the Members of the Samiti without any notice and they were being put to irreparable loss. It has been averred in the present writ petition that after passing of the order by this Court in the aforesaid former writ petition, the petitioner and the other persons kept on visiting the U.I.T. but they were never heard. However, according to the petitioner, on 07.03.2005, a notice came to be issued by the U.I.T. asking for appearance on 11.03.2005 whereupon she presented herself and submitted that all the particulars were already available in the file and the names were also available in the survey list with her name occurring at serial No.7. 3 The petitioner has further averred that recently, she came to know that in the meeting dated 29.04.2008, an order was passed by the U.I.T. that the cases of 25 persons referred in the former writ petition were not fit for regularisation, without hearing, without considering the notifications, and without stating the reasons. It has also been averred that the petitioner has come to know about the decision having indeed been taken by the Urban Improvement Trust in its meeting dated 21.01.2002 to regularise the possession of the petitioner and the similarly situated persons. Seeking to question the decision dated 29.04.2008 (Annex.9), the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the same has been taken in a rather cryptic and cursory disposal of the serious issue pertaining to regularisation of 25 persons who are in possession since long. Learned counsel submitted that regularisation had been made in relation to several of the persons but not even one reason is forthcoming as to why the cases of the petitioner and the similarly situated persons were at all rejected. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned decision could not be sustained for having been taken without application of mind. 4 Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is not persuaded to entertain this writ petition. Admittedly, the persons concerned, including the petitioner, earlier approached this Court by way of a writ petition, CWP No.1131/1992(A); and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 29.10.1996 while specifically noticing the submissions on behalf of the petitioners that they were not insisting for directions for regularisation but they were insisting that there case should be decided on its own merits and in accordance with the notification of the department. This Court noted the submissions on behalf of the petitioners thus: “….They want that their case should be disposed of. They are not insisting that the direction should be issued to regularise but, they are insisting that their case should be decided under its own merits and in accordance with the notification of the department.” And, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with the following directions:- “It is directed that the respondents/UIT should dispose of the files which are pending with them in relation to the members of the petitioners sangh whereby question of regularisation of land is to be determined by the respondents/UIT” 5 From the material placed on record, including the notice dated 07.03.2005 (Annex.7), it appears that there had been another relevant decision of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bikaner in Civil Misc. Case No.129/2000 on 20.07.2002. Though the copy of the order dated 20.07.2002 as passed by the said Civil Court has not been placed on record, but it appears that the U.I.T. took note of the requirements of the order dated 29.10.1996 as passed by this Court and so also the order dated 20.07.2002 as passed by the said Civil Court and then, issued and advertised a common notice to the persons concerned to produce the relevant evidence in support of their case so as to bring the matter to finality. The Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner has, thereafter, considered the matter in its meeting dated 29.04.2008 and at the outset it has been observed in the concerned resolution (at page 44 of the paper-book) that such encroachments were creating obstructions in Sadulganj Scheme and beautification of Panchshati Circle; and were not fit for regularisation. It cannot be said that the Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner has not objectively considered the matter of the petitioner; and merely because the said decision dated 6 29.04.2008 is not elaborate in its discussion, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be considered vitiated or calling for interference, particularly looking to the issue being dealt with and the subject matter of consideration before the U.I.T. As noticed hereinbefore, it had been the candid submission in the earlier writ petition before this Court that there was no insistence for regularisation and the only material submission was that the cases ought to be considered on merits. The requisite consideration having been made, the decision thereafter taken cannot be held illegal merely because the Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner and the State Government have declined regularisation. Even if any decision had earlier been taken by the U.I.T. in its meeting dated 21.01.2002 (as stated in the communication dated 21.05.2005 - Annex. 10) so as to recommend for regularisation, it appears that the State Government in its Urban Development Department declined the sanction for such regularisation by its order dated 02.12.2002 (Annex.11) for the encroachment being at the places reserved for civic amenities. Noteworthy it is that the encroachment being at the public utility places had been a fact stated even in the communication dated 21.05.2002 (Annex.10). In view of such undeniable facts that the 7 encroachments are at the public utility places, neither the respondents could be faulted in having declined regularisation nor there appears any reason to entertain this writ petition against the decision dated 29.04.2008. This writ petition stands rejected. s.soni (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.