Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 608 (RAJ)

Meera Kala Mandir v. State of Rajasthan

2015-03-10

SANGEET LODHA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of order dated 13.05.2014 issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Udaipur cancelling the allotment of the lands made in favour of the petitioner and notice dated 19.05.2014 issued by the Estate Officer, Municipal Corporation, Udaipur under Section 4 (1) of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964, directing the petitioner to show cause against the eviction from the property in question. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, constituted with the objective of promoting music, literacy and cultural work mainly being creation of saint Meera, was allotted land ad measuring 50017.6 sq. ft. in the year 1972 and 39000 sq. ft. in the year 1979. It is averred that the amount of lease rent for the allotments made as aforesaid, was deposited by the petitioner society by one time payment amounting to Rs.10,680/- on 30.9.2000. According to the petitioner, in terms of the license, the petitioner was permitted to use the said land for constructing residential building, commercial building (shops or shop cum flats) and not for any other purpose. It is submitted that the petitioner society was a Non Government Education Institution, which was receiving grant in aid from the State Government for meeting out its expenses and for making payment to its employees, falling within the category of aided employees. It is submitted that the grant in aid payable to the petitioner society was varied from time to time in between 70% to 90% and due to reduction in grant in aid, the petitioner society suffered loss. It is submitted that to over come the financial crunch suffered as aforesaid, the petitioner society decided to lease out some of its premises. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner society has been cancelled by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Udaipur vide order dated 13.5.14 under the directions of District Collector, Udaipur for violation of conditions of the license and consequently, the proceedings have been initiated by the Estate Officer, Municipal Corporation, Udaipur, under the provisions of the Act of 1964 for eviction of the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 4. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that order impugned dated 13.5.14 has been passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Udaipur under the dictates of District Collector (Vigilance) without application of mind. It is submitted that even the reply to the notice filed by the petitioner has not been considered while cancelling the allotment made in its favour. Learned counsel submitted that the order impugned passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation without extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, is ex facie illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipal Corporation submitted that the land in question was allotted to the petitioner on license basis at the concessional price for the specified purpose and therefore, the same could not have been used for any other purpose. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has tried to mislead this Court by stating that under the license issued, tire petitioner was permitted to use the land for construction of commercial building (shops or shop cum flats). It is submitted that the petitioner has managed the photo copy of the license according to its own requirement. Drawing the attention of this Court to the carbon copy of the license issued in favour of the petitioner, while allotting the land measuring 50017.6 sq. ft., placed on record, learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the use of the land for construction of the commercial building appearing in the format of the license was specifically deleted and therefore, the petitioner society could not have used the land for the commercial purpose. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the factum of the land being put to use for the purpose other than the purpose specified, is not even in dispute therefore, the order impugned passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, cancelling tire allotment made in favour of the petitioner cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel submitted that it is absolutely incorrect to state that the order impugned has been passed by the Commissioner on the dictates of the District Collector (Vigilance). Learned counsel fairly submitted that the order impugned does not disclose the consideration of the reply to the notice filed on behalf of the petitioner society. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. Learned counsel fairly submitted that the order impugned does not disclose the consideration of the reply to the notice filed on behalf of the petitioner society. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. A bare perusal of the order impugned reveals that the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation has cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner in compliance of the directions issued by the District Collector (Vigilance) vide communication dated 07.02.2013, 29.04.2013, 24.12.2013 and 15.04.2014. It is not in dispute that a notice issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, was responded to by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto. But then, neither the reply filed by the petitioner has been taken into consideration nor it has been extended an opportunity of hearing before passing the order impugned. 8. Indisputably, the rights of the petitioner are adversely and pre-judicially affected by the order impugned passed by the respondent-Municipal Corporation, cancelling the allotment of the disputed land made in its favour. It is well settled that if order passed by any authority has evil or civil consequences, the affected person is entitled for pre decisional hearing. In considered opinion of this Court, the respondent-Municipal Corporation, could not have passed the order impugned without considering the reply to the notice filed by the petitioner and giving it a reasonable opportunity of hearing. In this view of the matter, the order impugned having been passed in gross violation of elementary principle of natural justice, deserves to be quashed and set aside on this count alone and the matter deserves to be remanded to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation for passing an appropriate order afresh, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner society. 9. But then, there is yet another aspect of the matter. The petitioner, which has been allotted the land in question for specific objective of promoting music, literacy and cultural work mainly being creation of saint Meera, cannot be permitted to use the land for the purpose other than the purpose specified under the license and it cannot transfer the land in favour of any person in violation of the conditions of the license. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, during the pendency of the proceedings initiated for cancellation of allotment before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Udaipur, the petitioner cannot be permitted to proceed with any commercial construction over the land in question or to alienate the land in any manner whatsoever. 10. In tire result, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 13.05.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Udaipur and the notice dated 19.05.2014 issued by the Estate Officer, Municipal Corporation, Udaipur are quashed. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation shall pass an appropriate order in the proceedings initiated for cancellation of the allotment of tire disputed land made in favour of the petitioner afresh, after due consideration of the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner and giving it an opportunity of hearing, within a period of one month from the date receipt of the certified copy of this order. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Udaipur, the petitioner shall not alienate any portion of the disputed land in any manner whatsoever and the status quo as it exists today, shall be maintained in respect of the disputed land. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed.