Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 876 (MP)

Ramkishan v. State of M. P.

2006-07-18

A.K.MISHRA

body2006
ORDER 1. In this petition petitioners or the lessees Municipal Council Mandla have assailed the competence of Collector to give approval to the lease rent fixed by the Municipal Council to approve the lease rent as per order dated 23.4.2001. 2. It is not in dispute that petitioners were given the shops on rent way back in the years 1976, 1980-81, 1982, 1983 etc. They were paying the rent Rs. 100, 110, 135, 165/-. The rates were enhanced by 15% in the year 1987. The matter was referred to the Collector for approval. The Collector has passed an order (P-4). The Collector opined that it would be proper to enhance the rent after the lease period expires of the first ten years by 50% and for subsequent 10 years by another 50%. Pursuant thereto the Municipal council Mandla passed a resolution (P-5) on 19.6.2001 accepting the increase which was proposed by the Collector. 3. Further facts need not a dilated upon as only singular submission has been raised by Shri K.B. Bhatnagar with respect to jurisdictional competence of Collector to pass the order (P-4). He has submitted that as per rules called M.P. Municipalities (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1963 (hereinafte referred to as the Rules). It was not permissible to the Collector to pass the kind of order (P-4) which he has passed, thus the decision of the Council to enhance the rent by 15%, was proper. Thus order passed by the Collector and the resolution (P-5) passed on that basis, be quashed. 4. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Government Advocate and Shri Lakhan Yadav appearing for respondents have submitted that under Rule 5 (3) (a) Collector is competent to fix reasonable annual rent which shall be payable during the whole term of the lease, thus order is within competence of the Collector. No case for interference is made out. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, there is no merit in this petition. Rule 5 (3) is quoted below: 5. Transfer of land or building to the highest bidder.-- (3) If any such transfer of land is effected by lease, the Council with the previous approval of -- (a) the Collector where the value of the property does not exceed Rs. 10,000/-; (b) the Divisional Commissioner where the value of the property exceeds Rs. 10,000/- but does not exceed Rs. Transfer of land or building to the highest bidder.-- (3) If any such transfer of land is effected by lease, the Council with the previous approval of -- (a) the Collector where the value of the property does not exceed Rs. 10,000/-; (b) the Divisional Commissioner where the value of the property exceeds Rs. 10,000/- but does not exceed Rs. 20,000/-; (c) the State Government where the value of the property exceeds Rs. 20,000/-; shall fix a reasonable annual rent which shall be payable during the whole term of the lease. A bare reading of the aforesaid rule makes it clear that where the lease has been created by the council, council has to fix the reasonable rent with the previous approval of the Collector where the market value of the property does not exceed Rs. 10,000/-. It is not the case that market value exceeds Rs.10,000/-. 6. The submission raised by Shri Bhatnagar that Collector is competent to fix the annual rent not monthly rent. As rent used to be recovered monthly, Collector was not competent. The submission cannot be accepted. What is the rent payable monthly, makes out annual rent itself. Thus the Collector was competent to pass the order (P-4) rate has not been challenged to be arbitrary in any manner, rightly, as considering the fact that on paltry sum the petitioners were occupying the shop, the enhancement which was made virtually come to Rs.50-70/- in each of the case for next 10 years after period of expiry of lease and for next 10 years corresponding increase was to be made, which cannot be said to be exorbitant. 7. Thus, I find no merit in this petition. Writ petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred.