So far as legal question which is raised in the petition that in
case of renewal of lease no permission of the State Government is
necessary is concerned, in sub-section (5) of Section 80 of
Municipal Corporation Act it is specifically mentioned that the
provisions of Section 80 of the Act shall apply to every disposal of
property belonging to the Corporation made under or for the
purpose of this Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 80 of Municipal
Corporation Act is controlled by the proviso. First proviso of Sub-
section (5) of Section 80 of Municipal Corporation Act lays down that
the property vesting in the Corporation in trust shall not be leased,
sold or otherwise conveyed in a manner that is likely to prejudicially
affect the purpose of the trust subject to which such property is held.
Sub-clause-II of the proviso of Sub-section (5) of Section 80 of
Municipal Corporation Act lays down that no land shall be sold or
otherwise conveyed without the previous sanction of the State
Government.
The words “otherwise conveyed” are used in the same sense
implying the transfer absolutely by modes other than sale. The word
'sale or conveyed' used in the aforesaid proviso makes it clear that
no property can be transferred without the permission of the State
Government.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE.
SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI N.K. MODY, J.
WP.No.6779/10
Nanda Nagar Saakh Sahakarita Maryadit Vs. State of M.P. & Another
(Passed on 14th day of November, 2013)
Citation: AIR 2014(NOC)505 MP
The prayer in the petition is that respondent No.2 be directed
to mutate the name of petitioner after receiving the remaining lease
amount from the petitioner and thereafter to renew the lease for
another period of 30 years as per the terms and conditions
mentioned in the lease deed (Annx.P/3) as lease is going to expire
on 12/11/2010. This petition was filed on 21/6/2010.
2.
Facts of the case are that the property involved in the case is
situated at 1, Pardeshipura, Indore bearing survey No.613
measuring 1.2145 Hect.=3 Acres=131600 sq.f.t. Undisputedly the
property is owned by respondent No.2 which was leased out by the
respondent No.2 in favour of one M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical
Industries vide lease deed dated 12/1/1981 for a period of 30 years
on the premium of Rs.1,500/- per year for ten years and thereafter
@ Rs.2,400/- per year for rest of twenty years. During currency of
lease, M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical Industries entered into an
agreement to sell the lease hold rights to the petitioner vide
agreement dated 9/1/2003 for a consideration of Rs.1,38,00,000/-.
An intimation was given by M/s Dhanlaxmi to the respondent 2 in
-2-
that regard vide application dated 25/2/2003. Vide letter dated
28/2/2003, respondent No.2 permitted M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemicals to
transfer the lease
hold rights in favour of the petitioner. The
agreement was for 1,21,600 sq.ft. Instead of 1,31,600 sq.f.t. as
construction was raised by M/s Dhanlaxmi on the rest of the land.
After obtaining the permission on 25/3/2004, sale deed was
executed by M/s Dhanlaxmi in favour of the petitioner vide
registered sale deed dated 29/5/2004 for a piece of land measuring
1,21,600 sq.ft.. Thereafter an application was filed by the petitioner
for mutation on which the matter was placed before Mayor-in-council
and resolution was passed in favour of the petitioner on 22/9/2004
which was confirmed on 6/10/2004. Thereafter the application filed
by the petitioner was sent for approval by the respondent No.2 to
the
respondent No.1. Since there was no progress, therefore
petition was filed by the petitioner for necessary directions.
3.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that lease was for 30
years with a clause of renewal, therefore respondent No.2 was
supposed to mutate the name of the petitioner for which no approval
is necessary. Learned counsel draws the attention of this court on
section 80 of the Municipal Corporation Act which deals with
provisions governing the disposal of municipal property or property
vesting in or under the management of Corporation. Section 80 of
the Act reads as under :-
80. Provisions governing the disposal of
municipal property or property vesting in or under the
management of Corporation-
1. No streets, lands, public places, drains or irrigation
channels shall be sold, leased or otherwise alienated,
save in accordance with such rules, as may be made
in this behalf.
2. Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1)-
(a) the Commissioner may, in his discretion, grant a
lease or any immovable property belonging to the
Corporation, including any right of fishing or of
-3-
gathering and taking fruit, flowers and the like, of
which the premium or rent, or both, as the case may
be, does not exceed five hundred rupees for any
period not exceeding twelve months at a time.
Provided
that
every such lease granted by the Commissioner,
other than the lease of the class in respect of which
Mayor-in-Council has by resolution exempted the
Commissioner
from
compliance
with
the
requirements of this proviso, shall be reported by
him to the Mayor-in-Council within 15 days after the
same has been granted.
(b) with the sanction of the Mayor-in-Council, the
Commissioner may by scale or otherwise grant a
lease or immovable property including any such right
as aforesaid, for any period not exceeding three
years at a time of which the premium or rent or both,
as the case may be, for any one year does not
exceed three thousand rupees,
(c) with the sanction of the Corporation the
Commissioner may lease, sell or otherwise convey
any
immovable
property
belonging
to
the
Corporation.
The commissioner may -
(a) in his discretion dispose of by sale, letting out on
hire or otherwise, any movable property belong to
the Corporation not exceeding five hundred rupees
in value;
(b) with the sanction of Mayor-in-Council, dispose of
by sale, letting out on hire, or otherwise any movable
property belonging to the Corporation not exceeding
five thousand rupees in value;
-4-
(c) with the sanction of the Corporation, sell, let out
on hire or otherwise convey any movable property
belonging to the Corporation.
The sanction of the Mayor-in-Council or of the
Corporation under sub-section(2) or sub-section (3)
may be given either generally for any class of cases
or specifically in any particular case.
(5) The provisions of this section shall apply
to every disposal of property belonging to the Corporation
made under or for the purpose of this Act.
Provided that-
(i) no property vesting in the Corporation in
trust shall be leased, sold or otherwise conveyed in a manner
that is likely to prejudicially affect the purpose of the trust
subject to which such property is held.
(ii) no land (value of which may be
prescribed) shall be sold or otherwise conveyed without the
previous sanction of the Government and every sale, or other
conveyance of property vesting in the Corporation shall be
deemed to be subject to the conditions and limitations
imposed by this Act or by any other enactment for the time
being in force.
4.
Learned counsel submits that since the property is
lease hold property and not a free hold property, therefore no
permission is necessary for the respondent No.2 from respondent
No.1. For this contention, reliance is placed on a decision in the
matter of Municipal Corporation, Satna vs. Badri Prasad, 2001(4)
MPHT 387 wherein this court has held that “it is not necessary to
obtain sanction of State Government in respect of property for which
lease is created. It is further held by this court that restriction is
limited to sale or absolute transfer of the property by any other mode
where value exceeds Rs.25,000/-, hence proviso (ii) to subsection
(5) of section 80 would not apply to a lease. Further reliance is
placed on a decision in the matter of Municipal Corporation,
Bhopal Vs. Mohd. Yunus, 2009(1) MPLJ 282, wherein after
placing reliance in the matter of Municipal Corporation, Satna
wherein plea of the corporation was that there is statutory bar for
creating permanent lease in favour of the decree holder, this court
held that Municipal Corporation can convey any immovable property
belonging to it without any sanction of the State Government as
there is no statutory embargo for the municipal corporation to
convey any immovable property belonging to the Corporation and
for that no prior sanction is required from the State Government.'
Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Radha
Kamal Vs. Puri Municipality, AIR 1954 Orissa 110 wherein
Division Bench of Orissa High Court has held that a covenant
entered into between a lessor and a lessee is primerily binding as
between the two personally. But upon an assignment either of the
reversion or of the terms, it may also be binding on the grantee of
the reversion or the assignee of the terms, and similarly, the benefit
of a covenant may pass to these parties respectively. If the
covenant is one by the lessor for the benefit of the lessee and
directly touches or concerns the land it runs with the land in favour
of the assignee. An option to renew the lease runs with th eland and
the lease-hold interest, and so both the lessors and the lessees'
successors-in-title are bound. Reliance is also placed on a decision
in the matter of Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. State, AIR 1981
Allahabad 396 wherein Allahabad High Court held that lessee has
right for renewal and lessor cannot refuse. Further reliance is
placed on a decision in the matter of State of U.P. Vs. Lalji
Tandon, (2004) 1 SCC 1. It is submitted that petition filed by the
petitioner be allowed and respondent No.2 be directed to mutate the
name of the petitioner and also renew the lease deed for another
period of 30 years as per the original terms of the lease.
5.
Mr. C.R.Karnik, Dy.G.A. for respondent No.1 submits that
matter is pending with respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 has
not taken any decision in this regard.
-6-
6.
Mr. Anand Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.2
submits that property in dispute belongs to respondent No.2. The
lease was for a period of 30 years. Vide resolution dated 22/9/2004,
Mayor-in-Council after passing the resolution sent the same for
approval of the State Government which has never been challenged
by the petitioner at any point of time. It is submitted that since
reliance is also placed by the petitioner, therefore now the petitioner
cannot say that no sanction of the State Government is necessary.
Learned counsel further submits that case laws on which reliance is
placed by the petitioner is per incuriam as it is against the provisions
of subclause(2) of subsection(5) of section 80 of the Municipal
Corporation
Act.
Learned
counsel
submits
that
surprisingly
Dhanlaxmi who has already transferred its rights in favour of the
petitioner filed a petition before this Court hastily which was
numbered as 6836/2013 in which certain directions were given to
the respondent No.2 vide order dated 13/6/2013. Thereafter a
review petition was filed which was numbered as R.P.432/2013 and
was dismissed vide order dated 2/9/2013. It is submitted that
against the order dated 13/6/2013 passed in W.P.No.6836/2013,
respondent No.2 has filed a Writ Appeal which is numbered as
8234/13 and vide order dated 03/10/2013 operation of order dated
13/06/13 passed in WP.No.6836/13 has been stayed. It is submitted
that since the period of lease which was originally granted in favour
of M/s Dhanlaxmi has expired on 12/11/2010 as the lease started
from 13/11/80, therefore petitioner has no right to get the mutation
or renewal of the lease which was never in favour of the petitioner.
Learned counsel further submits that since upon the complaint,
matter is sub judice before Special Court upon the complaint of
Lokayukta, therefore also the lease cannot be renewed. It is
submitted that petition be dismissed.
7.
From perusal of the record it is evident that land in question
and the adjoining land was measuring 8 acres situated in the heart
of the city. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that when the
land was leased out. However, it appears that a civil suit was filed
-7-
for possession by the Municipal Corporation / respondent No.2 in
the Court of II Civil Judge, Class-I, Indore, which was numbered as
2-A/77, in which compromise took place and under the compromise
five acres of land was handed over to the Municipal Corporation /
respondent No.2 and for rest three acres of land lease was granted
for a period of 30 years on payment of lease rent @ Rs.125/- per
month for ten years and thereafter the lease rent was to be
enhanced @ 200/- per month. In terms of compromise the decree
was also passed. As per judgment and decree the occupation of the
defendant of that suit was as of tenant. Important terms and
conditions of the said compromise on the basis of which decree was
passed are as under:-
{Vernaculars omitted}
8.
It appears that in terms of compromise the decree which was
passed
on
17/11/80,
lease
deed
was
executed
between
Hukumchand Parikh, who was party to the suit as partner of M/s
Dhanlaxmi
Chemical
Industries
and
respondent
No.2
on
12/01/1981. This is how M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical Industries
remained in occupation of three acres of land. It appears that in
compliance of judgment and decree lease deed was executed on
12/01/81, which was valid from 13/11/80 for a period of 30 years.
Thus lease deed was in operation from 13/11/80 to 12/11/10. Before
expiry of period of lease M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical Industries
entered into an agreement with the petitioner vide agreement dated
09/01/03 whereby lessor agreed to sell 121600 sq. feet of land @
Rs.114/- per sq. feet and also paid a sum of Rs.28,00,000/- as
earnest money. Prior to entering into agreement to sell the lessee
applied for sanction of plan with Joint Director, Town & Country
Planning for construction, which was permitted by the Joint Director,
Town & Country Planning vide order dated 22/01/03. On 26/02/03
M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical Industries moved an application with
Municipal Commissioner,
Corporation
whereby
Municipal
Corporation was informed about the agreement to sell, which took
place on 09/01/03 and prayed for mutation of the petitioner society.
Again an application was filed by M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical
Industries
with the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation on
28/02/04 wherein permission was sought to transfer the lease hold
rights in favour of petitioner society. Petitioner society also moved
an application for mutation on 23/02/04, which was filed by Shri
Ramesh Mendola, President of petitioner society. Upon the
application filed by petitioner society and also lessee M/s Dhanlaxmi
Chemical Industries, Municipal Corporation, Indore vide letter dated
25/03/04 issued no objection certificate with a condition that the
lessee has to deposit the original lease deed in the custody of
corporation. The ownership of the land in question will be of the
corporation and lease rent has to be deposited regularly. After
obtaining no objection certificate on 25/03/04 registered sale deed
was executed by M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical Industries in favour of
petitioner society on 29/05/04 whereby M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical
Industries sold the rights in the suit property for a consideration of
Rs.1.38 lacs. The sale deed for transfer of lease hold rights was
signed by partners of M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical Industries on behalf
of lessee and on behalf of petitioner society the deed was signed by
the president of society Ramesh Mendola. An application filed by
the petitioner society for mutation was placed before Mayor-in-
council and vide resolution no.759 dated 22/09/04 permission was
granted with the condition to obtain the permission from the State.
-9-
The said resolution dated 22/09/04 reads as under:-
{vernaculars omitted}
9.
Proposal No.613 dated 06/10/04 passed by the president
Municipal Corporation, Indore reads as under:-
{vernaculars omitted}
10.
Thereafter
vide
letter
dated
15/04/05
Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation, Indore referred the matter for seeking
permission from the State Government, of which reminder was also
sent on 24/03/06. Vide letter dated 06/07/06 State Government
made certain queries. The letter dated 06/07/06 issued to Municipal
Corporation, Indore reads as under:-
{vernaculars omitted}
11.
In reply to the queries made by the State Government vide
letter dated 25/07/06 Municipal Corporation informed the State
Government that the question of inviting tender for leasing out the
property does not arise as fresh lease is not being given and it is a
case of renewal of earlier lease. Vide letter dated 14/09/06 again
queries were made from the Municipal Corporation, Indore, which
reads as under:-
{vernaculars omitted}
12.
The queries made were replied by the Municipal Corporation
vide letter dated 21/09/06, which reads as under:-
{vernaculars omitted}
14.
There are some important dates which requires to be
noted which are as under:-
Sr.No. Date
Event
1 17/11/80 Judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.2-A/77 in
compromise.
2 12/01/81 Lease deed executed for a period of 30 years w.e.f. 13/11/80 to
12/11/10.
3 09/01/03 Petitioner entered into an agreement to purchase the lease hold
rights from M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical Industry for a
consideration of Rs.114/- p.sq.feet and paid earnest money of
Rs.28 lac.
4 22/01/03 Permission granted by Joint Director, Town & Country
Planning to M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical Industry.
5 26/02/03 Application was filed by M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical Industry
for permission for transfer.
6 28/02/04 Again similar type of application filed by M/s Dhanlaxmi
Chemical Industry.
7 23/02/04 Petitioner society also filed application for mutation through
M/s Ramesh Mendola president of petitioner society.
8 25/03/04 No objection certificate was issued by the city engineer of
respondent No.2.
9 29/05/04 Sale deed was executed by M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical Industry
in favour of petitioner for a consideration of Rs.1,38,00,000/-.
10 22/09/04 Permission was granted for mutation in favour of petitioner by
Mr. Kailash Vijayvargiya, Mayor, Municipal Corporation,
Indore.
11 06/10/04 Resolution passed by respondents in that regard.
12 15/04/05 Respondent No.2 requested to respondent No.1 for seeking
permission for mutation.
13 24/03/06 Respondent No.2 sent reminder.
14 06/07/06 State Government raised queries.
15 25/07/06 Reply was sent by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1.
16 14/09/06 Again queries were made by respondent No.1 from respondent
No.2.
17 21/09/06 Reply was sent by respondent No.2 to respondent No.2.
-17-
18 08/03/07 Again queries were made by respondent No.1 from respondent
No.2.
15. So far as legal question which is raised in the petition that in
case of renewal of lease no permission of the State Government is
necessary is concerned, in sub-section (5) of Section 80 of
Municipal Corporation Act it is specifically mentioned that the
provisions of Section 80 of the Act shall apply to every disposal of
property belonging to the Corporation made under or for the
purpose of this Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 80 of Municipal
Corporation Act is controlled by the proviso. First proviso of Sub-
section (5) of Section 80 of Municipal Corporation Act lays down that
the property vesting in the Corporation in trust shall not be leased,
sold or otherwise conveyed in a manner that is likely to prejudicially
affect the purpose of the trust subject to which such property is held.
Sub-clause-II of the proviso of Sub-section (5) of Section 80 of
Municipal Corporation Act lays down that no land shall be sold or
otherwise conveyed without the previous sanction of the State
Government.
16.
The words “otherwise conveyed” are used in the same sense
implying the transfer absolutely by modes other than sale. The word
'sale or conveyed' used in the aforesaid proviso makes it clear that
no property can be transferred without the permission of the State
Government.
17.
Since right from last 10 years the matter is pending before
respndent No.1 upon the request of respondent No.2 for grant of
permission / no objection and the petitioner is also placing reliance
on the resolution whereby respondent No.2 granted permission for
renewal subject to approval of respondent No.1, therefore, at this
juncture the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted that the
permission of respondent No.1 is not required under the Law. On
the contrary since the rights are being claimed by the petitioner for a
valuable piece of land owned by respondent No.1, therefore, it
cannot be conveyed by sale or otherwise without consent of State
Government.
18.
From perusal of the record submitted by the parties from time
to time it is evident that it is 1,31,600 sq. feet of land which was
leased out by the respondent No.2 under a decree of Court which
was based on compromise application filed in Civil Suit No.2-A/77.
Therefore, while purchasing the lease hold rights what the petitioner
could have purchase was at the most that period for which the lease
was subsisting. The lease agreement executed by M/s Dhanlaxmi
Chemical Industry in favour of petitioner is dated 12/01/81. Lease in
favour of M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical Industry was to expire on
12/11/10. No rights could have been sold by M/s Dhanlaxmi
Chemical Industry to the petitioner in the land in question for the
period w.e.f. 13/11/10 onwards. Initially at the time of execution of
lease agreement lease rent was fixed @ Rs.150/- per month for a
period of 10 years and thereafter the lease rent was payable @
Rs.200/- per month. The lease rent of 1,31,000 sq. feet of land @
Rs.200/- per month comes to 0.001526 paisa, which was not fair the
rent even at the time when the lease was executed. However, since
there was a dispute between M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical Industry and
also respondent No.2, therefore, lease was executed in a
compromise which took place in Court. No objection issed by City
Engineer is dated. 25/03/04. There is nothing on record to
demonstrate that how City Engineer was competent to issue no
objection to M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical Industry for sale of land which
was owned by respondent No.2. Apart from this by the letter which
was issued by City Engineer, no objection was given to M/s
Dhanlaxmi Chemical Industry to sale lease hold rights as per
Clause-6 of the original lease deed. Neither fresh terms were settled
by the said letter, nor the City Engineer was competent to do so as
there is nothing on record in this regard.
19.
The document which is executed by M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical
Industry in favour of petitioner is also not a transfer of lease hold
rights, but it is titled as sale deed which was not permissible in law
as in fact there was no sale. There is nothing on record that the land
is used in last more then 30 years for any good purpose. At that
point of time when the petitioner society or M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical
Industry applied for issuance of no objection certificate, Mr. Kailash
Vijayvargiya was Mayor of Municipal Corporation, Indore and
thereafter MLA from the Constituency where the land is situated.
Petitioner society is also represented by Mr. Ramesh Mendola who
is also MLA from the Constituency where the land is situated. Who
are the members of the petitioner society are not known to this
Court as the list of members of petitioner society is not on record.
The way in which steps were taken one after another for obtaining
the permission from the Joint Director, Town & Country Planning by
M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical Industry who was going to transfer its right
in the property shortly and thereafter the application for permission
in anticipation to transfer the land and thereafter the application filed
by the petitioner society goes to show that right from beginning an
effort was made to grab the valuable piece of land which is owned
by Municipal Corporation. There is absolutely no justification on the
part of the then Mayor of the Municipal Corporation to give consent
for renewal of lease for a period of another 30 years on the same
terms i.e. on the lease rent @ Rs.200/- per month. It appears that
the market value of the land in question is in 10 figures. If the
permission of the State Government would have not been
necessary as is required under Section 80 of Municipal Corporation
Act, then by this time the land would have been transfered to the
petitioner society by the respondent No.2. From the record it also
appears that the State Government has repeatedly made the
queries that why the procedure should not be followed for
transferring the land by auction, but the Municipal Corporation has
always defended the same as is evident from the letters exchanged
between the parties.
20.
It is extremely surprising that when the petition filed by the
petitioner for mutation was pending since 2010, therefore, what was
the circumstances which compelled M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical
Industry to file a fresh petition, that too, in vacation for a direction to
get the land transferred in the name of petitioner society. The act of
the company who was left with no rights in the property itself speaks
in volume about the intention.
21.
Total piece of land is 131600 sq. feet. Petitioner is asking for
mutation on a piece of land measuring 121600 sq. feet, while lease
deed is in favour of petitioner society by M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical
Industry for the entire land. Inspite of the fact that lease was
transferred by M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical Industry in favour of
petitioner society the Municipal Corporation obliged to raise the
construction by constructing 22 flats over the lease land. Municipal
Corporation has further obliged to mutate the name of each of the
individual flat holders as owner, while the land belongs to Municipal
Corporation. From the record it appears that upon asking no
objection for mutation and renewal of lease the State Government
was not convinced with the request made by the petitioner and with
the recommendation made by respondent No.1. But in the Court it
has not been properly defended by the State Government for the
best reasons known to it.
22.
From perusal of the record of WA.No.843/13 whch is appeal
filed by respondent No.2 it is evident that upon the complaint made
by Mr.Suresh Seth S/o Mr. Kishanlalji Seth complaint is filed before I
Additional Sessions Judge alleging that the land belonging to
corporation has illegally been sold to the petitioner society. In the
said complaint allegations are also regarding computation of rent of
lease deed, change of land use, grant of building permission etc.
Vide order dated 06/04/10 learned Court directed to enquire into the
matter and in case cognizable offence is found tobe committed then
to register FIR. It is also evident from the appeal filed by respondent
No.2 that after holding preliminary enquiry in case no.11/10 offence
was found to have been committed and consequently case was
registered at Crime No.57/10 for an offence punishable under
Section 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act read with
Section 120B of IPC against Mr. Ramesh Mendola, MLA, president
of petitioner society and other office bearer and also against the
employees of corporation respondent No.2. In the said criminal case
it is also prayed by the complainant that Mr. Kailash Vijayvargiya
who is Industry Minister of respondent No.1 be also impleaded as
accused, which has yet to be decided.
23.
Facts stated hereinabove speaks in volume prima facie that
an effort is being made to grab a valuable piece of land measuring
131600 sq. feet situated in the heart of the city owned by
respondent No.2 in the name of petitioner society and at the
relevant point of time all cooperation was extended by the persons
who were holding office of respondent No.2 and the matter is
subjudice before competent Court for punishment for the offence
punishable under the Provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.
Total accused persons are 17 in number. Since no lease was
executed by respondent No.2 in favour of petitioner, therefore, only
on the basis of no objection certificate issued by city engineer or
resolutions passed by Mr. Kailsh Vijayvargiya, the then Mayor of
Municipal Corporation, Indore, it cannot be presumed that the
petitioner is having lease renewed and is entitled for mutation. Since
the lease in favour of M/s Dhanlaxmi Chemical Industry was upto
2010 and that period is over, therefore, the petition so far as
mutation is concerned, has become infructous. So far as further
period is concerned, no question of mutation arises as lease was
not renewed. Without any hesitation it can be said that renewal of
lease for a period of another thirty years was not at all in the interest
of Municipal Corporation respondent No.2 herein.
24.
Inspite of lapse of considerable time after expiry of lease no
steps has been taken by the respondent No.2 to initiate action to
take the possession of the land for the reasons best known to the
officers who are holding the office of respondent No.2. In the special
facts and circumstances where respondent No.2 is unable to protect
the interest of the Corporation, this Court is left with no option
except to direct the petitioner to handover the possession of the land
in question i.e. 121600 sq. feet forthwith and to direct the
respondent No.2 to take appropriate steps for possession. It is made
clear that in case petitioner fails to handover the possession of the
land forthwith, then petitioner society shall be liable to pay
compensation @ Rs.1/- per sq. feet per month. So far as the land on
which 22 flats have been constructed and of which petitioner society
is not claiming any right is concerned, respondent No.2 may offer
the owners of the flat to purchase the rights of land by sale/lease on
which the flats are constructed on the rates as per Collector
guideline. If reasonable offer is received, then Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation shall place the matter before Mayor-in-
Council and after the resolution of Mayor-in-Council shall place the
matter for discussion in the House and shall refer the matter to the
State Government for its concurrence. If no offer is received within
six weeks from the date of notice which shall be issued within four
weeks, then respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to take steps to take
possession of the land over which the flats are constructed.
25.
With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of. Copy of the
order be supplied to respondents for immediate compliance.
(N.K. MODY)
JUDGE
Anurag*
No comments:
Post a Comment