1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9981 of 2005 . Tulsi Ram son of Shri Ganesh Dutt and Another VERSUS Nagar Palika Bundi and Others Date of Order :::: 21/08/2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. A.K. Pareek, Counsel for the Petitioners. Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Manoj Sharma, Counsel for the Respondents Per Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been preferred in the matter of grant of temporary injunction. Both the learned Courts below have rejected the prayer made by the petitioners against which this petition was filed and this Court while issuing notices on 16.12.2005 had passed an interim order directing both the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to the property in dispute. 2 Since, the aforesaid order of maintaining the status- quo is not going to be useful to either of the parties, as part of the premises has admittedly been demolished during the drive to remove the encroachment, which were coming within the restricted zone from the centre of the road. It has come on record that the petitioner is claiming to be in possession of the property alleging that his possession was an old one and submitted an application before the Municipal Authority in the year 1999 during an alleged drive for regularization of the possession. As per the case of the plaintiff- petitioner the said application is said to be pending before the Municipal Board, Bundi and has not been decided so far. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has not been able to confirm this fact as to whether any such application is pending or not. Though, such an application a copy of which was alleged to have been filed before the learned trial Court during the course of the hearing of the application for the grant of temporary injunction. From the above, the learned trial Court inferred that admittedly the possession of the plaintiff-petitioner is as trespasser over the land in dispute and the land as per the plaintiff-petitioner also belongs to the Municipal Board defendant that is why the petitioner has applied to the Municipal Board for 3 regularization of his possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to submit that in accordance with the Rules of 1974 framed under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 there is a provision for regularization of possession even in the case of trespasser. This Court would not like to comment upon the aforesaid as in case the application, which is said to have been submitted by the plaintiff-petitioner is pending before the Municipality Authorities, the petitioner may approach the respondents with a copy of the said application and it is expected that the respondents would consider the same in accordance with law and decide the same after affording an opportunity to the petitioner of hearing. The petitioner is free to approach the Municipal Authorities in this behalf. So far as the present application for grant of temporary injunction is concerned, it is directed that the respondents shall not dispossesses the plaintiff save in accordance with the procedure established by the law, how even the petitioner shall also maintain the status-quo with regard to the property in dispute till then. Subject to the above, the writ petition and the stay application stand disposed of. (Dalip Singh) J. ashok/