TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espectively in this review petition, were constructing building on 1000 sq. yards plot left for park without any site plan or allot ment. It was farther alleged in that letter that the respondents No. 5 and 6 of this review petition had dug a foundation of 72 yards in length, to make further construction and they were trying to install idols on 11th November, 1997 to cover up their illegal encroachment and construction and by doing so, they wanted to grab the park land. It was further alleged in that letter that in formation about the illegal encroachment and construction made by the respondents no. 5 and 6 of this review petition over the plot left for park was sent to the Rajasthan Housing Board (respondent No. 3 in this re view petition), Jaipur Development Authority and Municipal Corporation (respondent No. 2 in this review petition). Thus, it was prayed in that letter that Rajasthan Housing Board (respondent No. 3 this, review petition ) and Municipal Corporation (respondent No. 2 in this review petition) be directed to remove all encroachments from the land adjoining the Bagla Mukhi Sadhana Kendra in Sector Mo. 3 Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, which was earmarked for park and it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound that near Bagla Mukhi Sadhna Kendra, on a piece of land a temple existed, but no work of a new construction was found. It was also noticed that the boundary wall was old arid there was a gate. It was further reported in the inspection report, that the premises were being maintained by the persons belonging to Pujya Sindhi Panchayat Sector No. 3 (petitioner-Society). It was further averred in the reply that the premises had been shown as temple and the land adjacent had been shown as land marked for temple in the Municipal map. It was further averred in the reply that the entire piece of land including the Bagla Mukhi temple was left for being allotted to different institutions but at that time, the disputed land was not marked as land reserved for constructing temple it was further in the reply that in the year 1994-95 the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur (respondent No. 2 in this review petition) auctioned few plots for residential purposes. So far as the unauthorised construction was concerned, it was averred by the Rajasthan Housing Board that since the colony had been, handed over to the Municipal Corporation, therefore, if there was any unauthorised construction, that was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecause of their negligence, encroachments had been made on the disputed land. (2) That whether the land in dispute is in charge of the Rajasthan Housing Board or in the charge of Municipal Corporation, it is immaterial, but it is of paramount importance for the public that it should be saved from encroachments and illegal constructions so that the land could be utilised for the purpose for which it was set apart. (3) That the dispute between the Rajasthan Housing Board and the Municipal Corporation as to whether one has handed over possession of the land to the other or not, was not decided by this Court. However, this Court found that the Municipal Corporation admitted that the general maintenance and upkeep of the colony including the works of maintenance and repairs of road, street lighting, drains, sewer lines and general cleaning of the colony have been handed over to it by the Rajasthan Housing, Board and general maintenance and upkeep of the colony shall also include saving it from unauthorised occupants and encroachers. Thus, Municipal Corporation will have ample authority to do all such things to keep the property intact for the use for which it was set part and left ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uing the notices in compliance with law, to the encroachers and shall dispose of the matter within a period of six months from today. Aggrieved from the said judgment dated 8-5-2000 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the present review petition has been filed by the petitioner-Society. 3. In this review petition, it was submitted by the petitioner-Society that over the disputed land, there is a public temple: and the petitioner-Society was managing all the affairs of that public temple. It was further submitted that the said public temple, which was being utilized by the public at large, was neither in the possession of the respondents No. 5 and 6 nor the respondents No. 5 and 6 were at all having any personal interest and on the contrary, the petitioner-Society was managing all the affairs of that temple, but Prof. C.L.Mighra, respondent-No. 1 in this review petition and petitioner in the writ petition, knowingly and intentionally did not implead petitioner-Society as party to the writ petition. It was further submitted that on 22-3-2000, the petitioner-Society filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 1, Rule 10 CPC before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to that writ petition. It further appears that the judgment in that writ petition was reserved by the Division Bench of this Court on 16-3-2000, Thus the application under Article 226 read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by the petitioner-Society after the judgment was re-served by the Division Bench of the Court. It further appears that the said application was not considered and decided by the Division Bench of this Court while-passing the Judgment dated 8-5-2000 in that writ petition and that application remained pending. Effect of pendency of application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 1. Rule 10 CPC. 8. In our considered opinion, pendency of the said application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, which was filed by the petitioner-society in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6051/97 for impleading as party to that writ petition would have no effect and would not give any benefit or cause of action or would not create any right in favour of the petitioner-society in any manner to seek review of the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 8-5-2000, because of the following reasons :-- (1) That ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd rival contentions about the existence or otherwise of the encroachment and the rights of the parties. (2) That the Division Bench of this Court simply directed the Municipal corporation, Jaipur to take action for removal of encroachments and it was further directed that while taking action for removal of encroachments, the Municipal Corporation shall naturally, in compliance with law, afford adequate opportunity to the persons known to but in possession of the encroached portions or those who claim the encroached portions to be in their possession, before removing the encroachments. (3) That the Division Bench of this Court further directed the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur to decide whether a prima facie case of encroachment is made out and if it is of the opinion that the public land has been encroached upon, it shall take action for its removal by issuing the notices in compliance with law to the encroachers. Thus, from the above directions/observations, i': cannot reasonably be inferred or gathered that the right of the petitioner-society has been affected in any manner. (4) That since no adverse order affecting the rights of the petitioner/Society has been p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
