1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8146/2009 Bhanwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 10th August 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.P.R.Singh,for the petitioner. .... BY THE COURT Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to entertain this writ petition wherein the petitioner seeks to question the auction notice issued by the Municipal Board, Pilibanga on 17.07.2009 (Annex.7) proposing to dispose of certain plots of the land under the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 by way of auction. According to the petitioner, plots Nos.11 to 14 as placed for auction under the said notice Annexure-7 and as shown in the plan Annexure-8, have been carved out of the land belonging to him admeasuring 130ft x 235ft wherefor a patta was issued to him on 06.01.1974 by the then Gram Panchayat, Dhirdesar within whose abadi area was the said land situated before the entire area was transferred to the Municipal Board, Pilibanga. 2 It is noticed from the material placed on record that the very fundamental aspects about the location of the land said to have been allotted to the petitioner under the patta in question and recognition of the rights of the petitioner by the said Municipal Board had been a matter of dispute and, as back as on 04.11.2004, the petitioner got served a notice through the lawyer (Annex.4) asking the Municipal Board to recognise his rights and refrain from alienating the land in question. The petitioner allegedly made an application to the Tehsildar, Pilibanga, who had allegedly handed over the area to the Municipal Board on transfer; and, according the petitioner, as back as on 06.12.2007 (Annex.6), the Tehsildar concerned, while informing the Municipal Board that the name of the petitioner had been left out of the land delivered in possession of the Municipal Board, stated that the matter be enquired into and the grievance of the petitioner be redressed. It is noticed even from the representation dated 23.07.2009 (Annex.9), as said to have been served by the petitioner upon the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, that while relying on the previous notice dated 04.11.2004, the petitioner suggested that the proposed auction be kept in abeyance until determination of his plot. 3 Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that existing the patta in his favour; and, for no proceedings having been adopted to cancel or set aside the said patta or in any way to take over the rights available from the said patta, the Municipal Board cannot deprive the petitioner of his land but then, all such submissions lack the very basic foundation inasmuch as it has never come on record that the land proposed to be dealt with by the Municipal Board is the same land as allegedly comprised in the patta referred by the petitioner. Such an inquiry, being obviously relating to the core questions of facts, cannot adequately be made in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is rather strange to notice that though the petitioner was aware as back as on 04.11.2004 about the clouds on his professed rights and about the dispute concerning the land in question with the Municipal Board and did serve a notice on the said Board, but chose not to take up any proceedings for declaration of his rights. The attempt on the part of the petitioner to invite such an inquiry and declaration of rights in the writ jurisdiction of this Court in the name of challenge to the auction notice dated 17.07.2009 cannot be countenanced. 4 This writ petition is, therefore, rejected. However, it is made clear that this Court has otherwise not pronounced on the legal rights, if any, of the petitioner nor this order would be of any impediment for the petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law. s.soni (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.