SBCWP NO.131/01. { 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.131/2001. Bhola Ram Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order:- May 12, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Santosh Kumar Jain for the petitioner. Shri Pradeep Kalwania, Additional Government Counsel. **** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the notice dated 14/12/2000 by which respondents demanded a sum of Rs.7,53,360/- from the petitioner towards arrears of rent from 1980 to 2000 of khatedari land situated at Village Sewar in District Bharatpur. 2) When this matter was initially considered on 30/5/2001, this Court passed the following order:- “The petitioner claims to be in actual physical possession of two shops since 1975 though there is no allotment letter in his favour. He has never paid the rent for last 26 years though in the petition he has mentions that he had made various representations to the competent authority to take the rent but no order has been passed by the authorities. Further relief sought by the petitioner is regarding regularization of his possession in the said shops. The matter is to be considered by the learned District Collector, Bharatpur as he is the Chairman of the District Nazul Building Committee for the District. The learned SBCWP NO.131/01. { 2 } Collector is requested to look into the matter and determine the rent and recover it for last 26 years and also consider the petitioner’s application for regularization. Issue notice to the respondents returnable within six weeks and the respondents may file reply after determining the rent and set terms and conditions of the regularization of the shop, if it is admissible in law. Notice of stay. In the meanwhile, for a period of six weeks, the petitioner shall not be disposed from the shops.” 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even after the aforesaid order was passed and representation was made to the District Collector, no order has yet been passed for regularization of his possession in the aforesaid two shops which in fact he is retaining since 1975. Learned counsel submitted that respondents in para 14 of their reply have contended that if petitioner pays a sum of Rs.2,04,326/- for one of such shops, as disclosed, his possession can be regularized. Petitioner is prepared to pay this much amount for each of the shop total amounting to Rs.4,08,652/- but the respondents have so far not consider it. 4) Learned Additional Government Counsel has opposed the writ petition and argued that petitioner could not show as to in what authority of law he acquired possession of the disputed shops. Petitioner has contended that he was allotted the shops by the Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti who had no authority SBCWP NO.131/01. { 3 } in law to allot the shops. Petitioner had not been paying the rent of these shops for last several years. Total rent now of these shops as on the date additional affidavit was filed i.e. 28/8/2006, comes to Rs.11,27,552/-. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed the submission made by the learned Additional Government Counsel and submitted that these two shops are situated in a small town named; Sewar. Respondents have regularized one such shop charging rate of ’14 ana per month’ from owner of Shop No.64. Demand of the respondents of exaggerated amount of rent is therefore highly unreasonable. 6) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that when this Court as far as back as 30/5/2001 required the District Collector Bharatpur as Chairman of the District Nazul Building Committee, in fact, requested him to look into the matter and determine the rent and also consider the application of the petitioner for regularization, the matter ought to have been considered afresh by the District Collector Bharatpur as Chairman of the District Nazul Building Committee. 7) Considering the fact that respondents are charging substantially lesser amount of ’14 ana per SBCWP NO.131/01. { 4 } month’ from adjoining Shop No.64 and petitioner is in possession of these shops for last almost thirty four years and that the respondents themselves have given the Shop No.64 on their own contrary to the prevalent market rate of rent, their demand of Rs.11,27,552/- cannot be said to be realistic and justified. 8) Having regard to the facts of the case, I leave it to the District Collector Bharatpur as Chairman of the District Nazul Building Committee to examine the application of the petitioner for determination of rent afresh and for regularization of possession of the petitioner over two shops in accordance with law. Writ petition is therefore allowed in part. Impugned-notice dated 14/12/2000 (Annm.24) as well as 14/12/2000 (Ann.25) are quashed and set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Nazul Building Committee/District Collector who shall consider and decide the application of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till such fresh orders are not passed by the District Nazul Building Committee, petitioner shall not be evicted from the disputed shops. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil