Mukesh Bidani And Anr vs State (Municipal Board )Ors on 17 May, 2011

    

 
 
 

 In The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
Jaipur Bench, Jaipur
O R D E R
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6735/2011
Mukesh Bidani & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.

Date Of Order :: 17th May,2011

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Meena, for petitioner.
		The petitioners by way of instant petition has assailed validity of the notice served by the Municipal Board, Kotputali dt.14.03.2011 regarding alleged encroachment. 
		It has come on record that two of his brothers against the aforesaid notice regarding alleged encroachment filed a revenue suit seeking permanent injunction along with application u/S.212 of Raj. Tenancy Act and after hearing the parties learned Assistant Collector, Kotputali vide consented order dt.20.04.2011 passed directions as under :-
"???? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ???? | ????? ?????????  ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??, ?? ???????????  ????? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ?? ?????????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ???? 1237 ????? 1243, 1245, 1246 ????? ????? ????????? ????? ???????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????, ?????? ????????? ?????? |
		The present petitioners have also alleged in para-2 of the writ petition regarding their joint holding of khasra-1237-1243 and have approached to this Court with the grievance that despite the order being passed by the Assistant Collector on 20.04.2011 some part of their boundary has been demolished and are not adhering to the order which has been passed by the competent authority u/S.212 of the Raj. Tenancy Act and as such no option was left with the petitioners than to approach this Court by filing the instant petition.
		The notice (Annx.12) was served upon the petitioner regarding alleged encroachment u/S.245 of the Raj. Municipalities Act,2009 and they have opportunity to raise all their objections available under law pursuant to notice (supra) served upon them but few of their brothers were advised to take legal recourse, as such filed a revenue suit for permanent injunction along with application filed u/S.212 of Raj. Tenancy Act, upon which  a consented order dt.20.04.2011 (supra) was passed.
		As regards the submission made by counsel that municipal authority is still demolishing part of their boundary treating it to be illegal encroachment despite the order of revenue authority dt.20.04.2011 being passed, suffice it to say that the petitioners are not the plaintiff before the revenue court, as such cannot raise a plea so far as action being taken regarding property which belongs to them is concerned and if at all they are aggrieved by the notice being served regarding illegal encroachment, opportunity was available with them to avail remedy provided under the statute and if at all the respondents before the revenue court have committed any defiance of the order passed by competent authority dt.20.04.2011 remedy is available to the parties to raise their grievances before the appropriate competent authority but in view of the statutory remedy available to the petitioners this Court is not inclined to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution.

Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to question the notice served upon them before the appropriate forum provided under the statute.
(Ajay Rastogi),J.

VS Shekhawat/-3
6735cw11May17FnlDsps.doc