1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1798 of 2002. Lal Chand Jain Vs. Nagar Parishad,Tonk & Another 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2180 of 2002. Babu Lal and Others Vs. Nagar Parishad, Tonk & Another 3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2181 of 2002. Kishan Lal and Others Vs. Nagar Parishad, Tonk & Anr. 4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1797 of 2002. Durga Lal Sharma Vs. Nagar Parishad, Tonk & Another Date of Order ::: 19/09/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Prem Shanker Asopa, J. Mr. N.K. Maloo, Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. G.K. Garg, Counsel for the Respondents **** By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the notices of the Municipal Council, Tonk dated 13.02.2002 issued under Section 203 read with Sections 170 and 194 of the Rajasthan 2 Municipalities Act, 1959, whereby the Municipal Council has held that the petitioners have encroached upon the land of the Municipal Council and further constructed house, which is illegal, therefore, they should remove encroachment within 24 hours or if they want any regularization, then to apply for regularization. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are bona-fide purchaser of the land through registered sale-deed/gift-deed dated 27.01.1986/10.09.1985 and have constructed house 15- 20 years prior to the date of issuance of the aforesaid notice. They further submitted that the land in question was personal property of the erstwhile 'Nawab-of-Tonk' and the said property was gifted by him to his sister Smt. Malika Ajeejujamani Begum. The said Malika Ajeejujamani Begum sold/gifted the said property to the petitioners, therefore, they are bona-fide purchaser and they cannot be evicted by summary procedure prescribed under Section 203 read with Sections 170 and 194 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Padmavati Devi (Smt.) 3 (Dead) by LRs., and Others, reported in 1995 Supp. (2) S.C.C. 290. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the said property was allotted to them on 01.03.1962 by the Collector, Tonk after converting the same in the `abadi land' and further in the Khewat Khatoni of the Samvat 2018 to 2022 the same has been mentioned as Government land and in the name of agriculturist “Mehkama Fauz” has been mentioned, therefore, the petitioners are trespassers and there is nothing wrong in issuing the notices. Mr. Maloo, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that this land is not covered by the said allotment. Since, the dispute of location/title is involved between both the parties and normally the same is required to be decided by the Civil Court, however, before the civil suit is filed by the petitioners the enquiry by the Collector is necessary whether the land of the petitioner is covered by the allotment order dated 01.03.1962 or not. The notice of removal of the encroachment and with the option for apply for the regularization 4 without determining the aforesaid dispute is liable to be quashed so far as the removal of encroachment is concerned. However, issue of regularization is kept open and the same will depend upon the result of the enquiry by the Collector, Tonk as well as direction of the Civil Court, in case any occasion arises for the petitioners to file a regular civil suit for determination of their rights. Consequently, all these four writ petitions are allowed. The notice dated 13.02.2002 is quashed to the extent of encroachment, and the Collector, Tonk is directed to conduct enquiry, after giving notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and further pass appropriate speaking order on the issue, as stated above within a period of three months. No order as to costs. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. ashok/ 5