DBCWP NO.7541/07. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7541/2007. Hari Narayan Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Judgment:- April 1, 2008. QUORUM HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Kesri J.Mehta for the petitioner. Shri N.C. Choudhary for respondent No.2. Mrs. Madhuri Singh for respondent No.4. ***** BY THE COURT:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for private respondent and also learned counsel for Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur. This P.I.L. application was filed highlighting encroachment made by respondent No.2 upon the land of the Jaipur Municipal Corporation. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for unauthorized occupation of respondent No.2, the matter was highlighted before the Municipal Corporation and the Municipal Corporation in its turn came out with an order that certain encroachments have been made upon the land of the Corporation in the year 1997 but thereafter no action is being taken by the Municipal Corporation to remove the encroacher i.e. the respondent No.2 from the land DBCWP NO.7541/07. 2 of the Corporation. It appears that virtually, this P.I.L. was filed to execute the order passed by the Corporation. Learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation submitted that they are looking into the matter and no sooner the land is identified to be of the Corporation, necessary action shall be taken against the persons who have encroached upon the same. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 at the same time submitted that he is in possession of the land in question since pre Independence and he has constructed his factory, residential house and some shops and some of the shops have been let out to the Municipal Corporation. Learned counsel further submits that he had already produced proofs in regard to the land in question before the Collector of Jaipur in the year 1967 and he was virtually recognized to be the owner of the land in question. Faced with this situation, as referred to above, in our view, this P.I.L. application should not be entertained, virtually, to execute the order passed by the Corporation. The writ petition if so advised, may raise questions again before the Municipal Corporation or may bring a proper suit in representative capacity for ouster of respondent No.2. With this observation, this application is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. (NARAYAN ROY), CJ. anil