1 25 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2261/2006. Smt. Bishmillah Vs. State & Anr. Date of Order :: 23rd September 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Kailash Khatri, for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Bhadu, for the respondent No.2. ..... BY THE COURT: It is submitted in this writ petition that the petitioner is an economically backward person and a widowed lady and has been using a piece of land for her residential purpose since the year 1980. It is submitted that the State Government issued various orders for regularisation of the possession of the persons on the land if they were in possession for long time; and that the authorities were approached for regularisation of the possession of the petitioner too. According to the petitioner, earlier the land was falling within the jurisdiction of Mandi Vikas Samiti, Hanumangarh Junction and the area was transferred to the Municipal Board, Suratgarh in the year 1992 and thereafter, the application was submitted by the petitioner to the respondent Municipal Board for regularisation of her possession that was pending. The petitioner has also pointed that some other persons' possessions were regularised by the respondent Municipal Board but has stated the grievance that her application has not 2 been decided and on the other hand, she was threatened by the officers of the Municipal Board with dispossession. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in this writ petition:- “a. The writ petition may kindly be allowed and an appropriate writ, order, direction may be issued against the respondents to restrain them from dispossessing the petitioner from the land in question situated in ward no. 17, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar. b. The respondents further may kindly be directed to issue a Patta or regularizing their land and the allotment may also be awarded in the favour of petitioner as per the order-dated 06.08.1988 of State Government. c. The respondents may kindly be directed not to allot this land anyone else. d. An allotment of this land may kindly be given in the favour of the petitioner on submission of appropriate amount as fixed by the respondents. e. Any other order, which this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper may kindly be granted. f. Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded.” In this writ petition, a show cause notice was issued on 10.05.2006 and dispossession of the petitioner was ordered to remain stayed. 3 A reply to the show cause notice has been filed on behalf of the Municipal Board and it has, inter alia, been contended that the Government Instructions issued in relation to Mandi Vikas Samiti (Annex.2) were not applicable to the Municipal Board who takes up dealing with the land as per the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974. It is also stated that the petitioner has two sons in her family and Sanju Bano got a lease deed under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Annex.R/1). (It has been explained during the course of submissions that the said Smt. Sanju Bano is daughter-in-law of the petitioner). It is also stated that the husband of the petitioner had a shop in the area of Municipal Board and an application submitted by him for exchange allotment on 28.01.1972 (Annex.2) has been referred. It has also been urged that the petitioner cannot claim more than 100 square feet of land whereas she is having in possession over 1333 square yards of land. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that she is a widowed lady and her sons are not living with her nor the said shop could be of any relevance for her residential requirement; and, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when other person's possession had been regularised, there was no reason why the petitioner's possession has not been regularised and her application has not been decided. 4 Having examined the record of the case and having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made, this Court is clearly of opinion that this writ petition remains totally bereft of substance and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Essentially, the claim of the petitioner is of seeking directions to regularise an unauthorised possession but such a claim has been made in writ jurisdiction of this Court with concealment of too many of the material facts. The respondents have clearly stated in their reply that the family of the petitioner has got land available with them and patta (Annex.R/1) issued in the name of Sanju Bano has been placed on record. It has been submitted that the said allottee is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner. The facts in relation to Annexure-R/1 have not been controverted by filing any rejoinder and it has simply been suggested at the time of arguments that sons were not living with the petitioner. Then, the fact that the petitioner's husband had a shop at Purani Mandi, Suratgarh, as borne out from the document Annexure- R/2, has also not been disputed. The suggestion that the petitioner is an economically backward person does not inspire confidence in the face of the submissions as made by the respondents and the documents as placed on record. 5 Even when the shortcomings in the conduct of the petitioner are left aside for a moment, it is apparent that what the petitioner seeks are the directions for regularisation of unauthorised possession. The petitioner cannot be considered to be having a right to claim regularisation; and merely for herself having made an application for regularisation or merely for any other regularisation, if made by the Municipal Board, the petitioner cannot be said to be having a legal right to be enforced in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. No case for issuance of any writ, order or direction is made out. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/