Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1315 (RAJ)

Municipal Council, Pali v. Deendayal

2015-07-16

SUNIL AMBWANI, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT : (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. Heard Mr.Paramveer Singh, learned counsel for the Municipal Council, Pali -the appellant in these appeals and Mr.Alkesh Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No.1 – Deendayal in DBCSA No.485/2013. 2. In this batch of 34 Special Appeals, the Municipal Council, Pali is aggrieved by the observations of learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 13.2.2013 by which he had partly allowed the writ petitions and while setting aside the order passed by the District Collector, Pali dated 28.9.1998 and the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur dated 22.2.2005, restored the matters back to the District Collector, Pali for decision afresh in accordance with law. 3. The observations with which the Municipal Council, Pali is aggrieved, have been made in para 23 to 26 in which the learned Single Judge travelling beyond the prayers made in the writ petition, expressed as a caveat that where allotment, transfer, lease or conveyance deeds have been executed, the District Collector has no power to cancel the documents and that for that purpose, after the District Collector, Pali passes an order in respect of validity of the lease deeds or the orders of allotment, the Municipal Council, Pali will have to file a suit for cancellation of the registered documents. 4. Brief facts giving rise to these Special Appeals are that the Municipal Council, Pali had allotted 64 plots of land to various private parties. The allotments were made by Shri V.D.Vyas, Former Commissioner and Administrator, Municipal Council, Pali. Complaints were made by the Municipal Council, Pali, through the Commissioner under Section 80 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, (in short, “the Act of 1959”) before the District Collector, Pali, for cancellation of allotments of plots on the ground that Shri V.D.Vyas, the Ex Commissioner and Administrator, had no authority to settle these plots with private persons. There was no order under Section 293A of the Act of 1959 of his appointment as Administrator. He had settled the land with 64 persons on wholly inadequate sale considerations. The plots were alloted illegally on petty amounts much less than the valuation prevailing in the area to benefit certain private individuals. There was no scheme by the name of Mahaveer Nagar Extension Scheme, sanctioned by the Municipal Council, Pali, on which the plots were carved out and settled with private persons. The plots were alloted illegally on petty amounts much less than the valuation prevailing in the area to benefit certain private individuals. There was no scheme by the name of Mahaveer Nagar Extension Scheme, sanctioned by the Municipal Council, Pali, on which the plots were carved out and settled with private persons. The land, which has been given to private persons, is the land, falling under the sanctioned plan of Tilak Nagar Dhanmandi Yojna. The entire transaction was without any authority vested in him playing fraud on the interest and assets of Municipal Council. 5. The District Collector, Pali, dismissed all the applications on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to decide the applications, inasmuch as Section 80(2)(b) and Section 80(3) of the Act of 1959 did not vest powers in him to cancel the concluded transactions of lease, sale, transfer or contract. He held that the powers u/s.80(2)(b) and Section 80(3) of the Act of 1959 may be exercised to decide the matter only at the proposal stage. Once the lease/sale has been executed and is registered, he did not have authority to make enquiry into the validity of allotments. The appeals were filed before the Divisional Commissioner, which remained pending for a long period of time, and were finally dismissed, on which the writ petitions were filed, giving rise to these Special Appeals. 6. The Municipal Council, Pali, relied on the Division Bench judgment of this court in Legal Representatives of late Gopi Ram alias Gopi Chand vs. Bhagwan Dass dated 19.4.2012 in DBCSA No.784/2004 and another judgment of this court of the same Bench in Virdha Ram through his L.Rs. vs. Municipal board, Sanchore dated 26.4.2012 in DBCSA No.825/2009. In both these Special Appeals, the Division Bench of this Court discussed the powers of the Collector under Section 80(2)(b) of the Act of 1959 and held that the Collector did have powers under Section 80(2)(b) of the Act of 1959 to modify, cancel or rescind wholly or in part the proposal made for lease, sale or transfer of the Government land or any action or proceeding taken in pursuance thereof or may give any other direction, as he may deem proper. The Division Bench held that even if the sale has taken place, the Collector had the power to annul the transaction in view of the provisions of Section 80(2)(b) of the Act of 1959. The Division Bench held that even if the sale has taken place, the Collector had the power to annul the transaction in view of the provisions of Section 80(2)(b) of the Act of 1959. In the facts of the case, discussed by the Division Bench, it was held that the permission to execute the sale deed was not obtained and sale deed was not in the prescribed performa. The Assistant Engineer of the Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar, who had signed the sale deed, was not authorized in the capacity of the Commissioner to execute the sale deed and, thus, the sale deed was rightly rejected by the Collector in view of Section 80(2)(a) and 80(2)(b) of the Act of 1959 and that the Collector also possess powers under Section 80(3) of the Act of 1959 to evict a person, who has entered into the possession of any municipal land or Government land in contravention of the provisions of the Act. It was also held, relying on the Apex Court judgment in Municipal Board, Kannauj vs. The State of U.P. & ors., AIR 1971 SC 2147 , examining powers u/s.34(1-B) of the U.P.Municipalities Act that the Section also authorized to prohibit the execution of the court's order. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Municipal Council, Pali that in view of the clear and unambiguous interpretation of Sections 80(2)(b) and Section 80(3) of the Act of 1959, by the Division Bench of this court that where the lease, sale, transfer or land acquisition by the Municipal Council or the Government is found to be in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1959, the Collector has power to annul the transaction, learned Single Judge erred in law in holding that where the transaction has been registered, the Municipal Council, Pali, for declaring the same to be illegal and invalid, will have to file a civil suit for cancellation of the document. The observations of the learned Single Judge were superfluous and were not called for, as neither any argument was raised nor the matter before the Court related to cancellation of any registered document, after the order was passed by the Collector. The observation, made by the learned Single Judge are also premature based only on assumptions. The observations of the learned Single Judge were superfluous and were not called for, as neither any argument was raised nor the matter before the Court related to cancellation of any registered document, after the order was passed by the Collector. The observation, made by the learned Single Judge are also premature based only on assumptions. Learned Single Judge was not called upon to decide with regard to consequences of the order of the Collector in pursuance to the order passed by him under Section 802) (b) of the Act of 1959. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents in DBCSA No.485/2013 “Municipal Council, Pali vs. Deendayal”, states that no allotment was made to respondent Deendayal of the land in question and that he does not fall within the list of 64 persons to whom the allotments were made by Shri V.D.Vyas, Former Commissioner and Administrator, Municipal Council, Pali, against whom a complaint was made by the Municipal Council, Pali. He submits that he has been wrongly clubbed by the Municipal Council with 64 persons for making a prayer to the Collector Pali to cancel their allotment. 9. It is admitted that the allotment to respondent No.1 Deendayal was also made by Shri V.D.Vyas, Former Commissioner and Administrator, Municipal Council, Pali, and that his plot is also situate in Tilak Nagar Extension Scheme and, thus, we find even if that his name was not included in 64 persons. The allegation against him for allotment were the same, as in the case of the other 64 persons. 10. We do not find any error of law in the order of the learned Single Judge, by which he had, after accepting the interpretation of Section 80(2)(b) of the Act of 1959 following the Division Bench judgments, held that the District Collector had powers, even beyond the stage of `proposal', to cancel any allotment, lease or sale and that in the circumstances, the orders of the District Collector and the Divisional Commissioner were not valid in law and that all questions of facts should be decided by the Collector afresh in accordance with law. 11. 11. The Special Appeals are allowed only to the extent that the observations made by the learned Single Judge in para 23 to 26 that the Collector may have powers to cancel the allotments, lease or sale, even beyond the proposal of the State, he had no powers to quash the registered sale deed, are set aside. The remaining part of the operative portion of the order of learned Single Judge in quashing the order of the District Collector and that of the Divisional Commissioner, Pali and directing the District Collector, Pali to decide the matter afresh, is maintained. 12. All the Special Appeals are, accordingly, disposed-of. The stay petitions are also disposed-of. A copy of this judgment be kept in all the connected matters.