1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1231/2005 (Kamal Kumar Vs. State & Anr.) DATE OF JUDGMENT : 14.11.2007 HON'BLE DR. VINEET KOTHARI,J. Mr. S. L. Jain, for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Boob, G.A., for the State. Mr. D. S. Rajvi, for the respondent. BY THE COURT: 1. Heard learned counsel for admission. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Municipal Board has failed to decide his representation for regularization of the land in dispute in his favour, though the regularization for such similarly situated persons was done in at least two cases, which are placed on record as Annexure 5 and Annexure 6. 3. On the side opposite, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the land in dispute cannot be regularized in favour of the petitioner as he is not entitled to the same and a notice under Section 203 of Municipalities Act, 1959 has already been given to the petitioner for removal of his encroachment over the land to which a reply has already been been filed by the petitioner. 4. Be that as it may, since proceedings are pending before the competent authority of the Municipal Board, Suratgarh, it is expected that the said authority will decide the 2/2 representation of the petitioner in the said proceedings under Section 203 of the said Act. It goes without saying that the petitioner would be free to produce the relevant evidence from his side and circulars, which he relies upon and the respondents would be free to decide the said representation considering such evidence and notifications in accordance with law. 5. The petitioner shall appear before the said respondent authority in the first instance on 28.11.2007 and is expected that he would produce all the relevant evidence and documents in support of his case not later than 10th December 2007 and is expected that the said authority will decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously before 31st December 2007. The authority will pass a reasoned order after giving him an opportunity of hearing, as he thinks appropriate. 6. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Dr. VINEET KOTHARI) J. preety Item No. 11