Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Iswar Singh vs Ganga Singh And Ors. on 6 July, 1993 Equivalent citations: AIR1994RAJ62 ORDER Rajendra Saxena, J. 1. Petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 681991 (Annex. 3) passed by the District Collector, Nagaur be quashed and respondents Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5 be directed not to interfere in his possession and not to demolish construction raised by him on the disputed plot of land. 2. Succinctly stated the petitioner's case is that he purchased the disputed plot of land measuring 80 ft. x 35 ft. 3111 / 9 square yards situated in Ward No. 1, Nagaur vide registered sale deed dated 3041991 (Annex. 1) from Shri Sag Ram Jat (respondent No. 2) and procured permission to raise construction thereon from the Municipal Board, Nagaur (respondent No. 3) vide permission letter dated 2271991 (Annex. 2) and also started construction. That on 791991, Ganga Singh (respondent No. 1), who is now Chairman of the Municipal Board, Nagaur, along with his staff came to the said plot and wanted to demolish the construction raised thereon, respondent No. 1 also informed the petitioner that the sale deed Annex. 1 had been cancelled. It is further the case of the petitioner that thereupon he contacted respondent No. 2 and came to know that the District Collector, Nagaur (respondent No. 4} by his impugned order dated 681991 (Annex. 3) had cancelled the sale order dated 2071985 (Annex. R/5) and the sale deed dated 3071985 (Annex. R/6) executed in favour of respondent No. 2 by the Municipal Board under Section 80(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), ordered for refund of the sale amount and for taking the possession of the disputed land. Aggrieved by the impugned order dt. 681991 (Annex. 3), respondent Sag Ram filed a revision petition before the State Govt. under Section 300 of the Act, which was later on dismissed as withdrawn with the observation that no such revision was maintainable. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the said revision petition, he had procured stay order against the respondent No. 1, who was his political adversary & who had tried to demolish the construction on the disputed plot of land, but due to the intervention of the Collector and the S.D.O. the construction could not be demolished. According to the petitioner, it was only through the impugned order Annex. 3 that he came to know that the Municipal Board, Nagaur had allotted one plot of land to Sag Ram in the year 1976 vide registered patta dated 2411976 (Annex. 4) but since some other person was in possession thereof, the disputed land was allotted to Sag Ram in the year 1985 and that since the size of the disputed plot of land was larger than the earlier allotted plot of land, the Municipal Board had also charged extra price of land. According to the petitioner, the sale of plot of land vide patta Annex. 4 in favour of Sag Ram was complete. However, at the instance of respondent No. 1, proceedings before the Collector were initiated under Section 80(2) of the Act and it was alleged that the allotment of the disputed plot of land in favour of Sag Ram was illegal and without jurisdiction. The case of the petitioner is that since the subsequent allotment of the disputed plot of land in favour of Sag Ram was made in the year 1985 and that transaction was complete, the Collector had no jurisdiction under Section 80(2) of the Act to set aside the completed sale of the disputed land and that by virtue of sale deed Annex. 1, a civil right has also been created in his (petitioner's) favour. Since the Collector did not afford any opportunity of hearing to him and cancelled the subsequent allotment order dated 2071985 as also the sale letter dt. 3071985 (Annex. R/6) executed by the Municipal Board in favour of Sag Ram, there was violation of the principles of natural justice therefore, impugned order dated 681991 Annex. 3 is without jurisdiction, which deserves to be quashed. 3. The Municipal Board (respondent No. 3) in its Counter has vehemently contested this writ petition and taken certain preliminary objections. Firstly, the petitioner has deliberately suppressed the material facts and not come with clean hands. Secondly, the petitioner has no legal right in his favour to enforce because the alleged subsequent allotment of the disputed land made in favour of respondent Sag Ram vide patta dated 2071985 Annex. R/6 was patently illegal and against the specific provisions of the Act and the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (in short "the Rules of 1974"). Thirdly, the petitioner's revision petition filed under Section 300 of the Act challenging the impugned order Annex. 3 was pending before the State Government at the time of filing of this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable.