1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5466/07 Atma Ram vs. The State of Raj. & ors. Date of Order: 14.9.2007 Hon'ble Mr. Prakash Tatia, J. Mr.H.S. Sidhu for the petitioner. Mr. K.N. Joshi for Municipal Board Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved against the respondent's notice dated 14.6.2007 by which the petitioner was asked to remove his encroachment from the land in dispute. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner though encroached upon the land but that is a residential land and he sought regularisation of his land and for that purpose he moved appropriate application, upon which proceedings were drawn by the Mandi Samiti as the land was of said Samiti at that time. Copy of the proceedings started on petitioner's application have been placed on record as Annex.P/4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State Government issued a circular dated 6.8.1988 and in view of the said decision of the State Government, the petitioner was entitled to get regularisation of his possession over the plot. It is also submitted that the petitioner also raised constructed over the plot and he is paying the house tax also to the Municipal Board after the land came under Municipal Board. It is submitted that in view of the old possession, the petitioner was entitled 2 to regularisation of his plot. It is also submitted that the petitioner's land has not yet been regularised by the respondend-Municipal Board. It is further submitted that the respondent-Municipal Board itself has regularised the plot of one Gajanand Sharma and proceedings for that plot has been placed on record by the petitioner as Annex.18 and Annex.19. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, apart from Gajanand, there are several other persons whose plots were regularised by the Municipal Board. The petitioner also placed on record copy of the receipt issued by the Municipal Board, Pilibanga whereby the house tax was charged. The learned counsel Shri K.N. Joshi appearing for the respondent submitted that this Court in D.B.Civil Writ Petition NO.789/06 directed the Municipal Board to remove all encroachments and, therefore, the encroachments are being removed. It is submitted that the petitioner's plot has not been regularised by any order and, therefore, the petitioner has no right over the property in dispute. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench delivered in D.B.Civil Writ Petition NO.789/2006 is pertaining to only the land falling on the road and public utility areas and it has nothing to do with the land which has in residential area. In view of the above, the said judgment has no application to the facts of this case. The Municipal Board is dispossessing 3 the petitioner from his house under assumption that the petitioner's encroachment was also ordered to be removed by the High Court. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record also. It is true that the circular was issued by the State Government on 6.8.1988 whereby it has been provided that certain encroachments can be regularised on certain conditions mentioned in the circular. The State Government issued circular for regularisation of the land falling in the Mandi Samiti area. Subsequently, this land came in the jurisdiction of the Municipal Board, Pilibanga. As per the petitioner, the petitioner's matter was considered in the year 1991 and thereafter the petitioner's land has not been regularised till now. The petitioner did not take any steps to protect his right for such a long time. It is true that petitioner gave several letters to the Municipal Board but that is of no relevance because of the reason that the petitioner should have been more vigilant. It is also irrelevant whether the Municipal Board has charged the house tax from the petitioner. The Division Bench of this Court in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.789/2006 passed the order in the matter that the local authorities how badly dealt against the problem of encroachment. In D.B.Civil Writ Petition 789/2006, the matter was in relation to the encroachment over the roads and public utility lands and, therefore, that was a decision given for that purpose for removal of 4 the encroachment from said land. But that does not mean that the Municipal Board or the local authorities are not bound to follow the law enacted by the legislature for removal of the encroachments. The regularisation cannot be claimed as a matter of right and further it will be relevant to mention here that in the garb of regularisation, the matters cannot be kept pending for such long time. The petitioner slept over for such a long time, is not entitled to any relief. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. ( PRAKASH TATIA ),J. mlt.