LexB.S. KHURANA AND ORS. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• B.S. KHURANA AND ORS. v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 21,2000 [M.B. SHAH AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] Municipalities: Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957: Section 200. Municipal property-Municipal, Quarters-Transfer-Power of- -Municipal Corporation passed resolutions to transfer municipal quarters to its employeesla/lottees-Municipal Commissioner objected to such transfer- Validity of-Held: Power to transfer municipal quarters vests in the Commissioner-Hence, there is no legal right to claim ownership on the A B c basis of such resolutions. D Municipal property-Transfer-By Municipal Commissioner- Conditions to be fulfilled-Held: Commissioner can transfer immovable property the value of which exceeds the statutory limit only after obtaining sanction of the Corporation. E The respondent-Corporation had been passing resolutions, one after another for transferring the municipal quarters to its emplo~ees/allottees. The Municipal Commissioner on one ground or the other objected to the said resolutions. The Corporation was superseded three times on the same count. The Corporation was superseded once more and, therefore, the Administrator, p on the Lt. Governor's direction, approved the Municipal Commissioner's recommendation for rescinding the resolutions. The appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court for implementing the earlier resolutions and also challenged the subsequent resolution rescinding the earlier resolutions . The writ petition as well as G the LP As were dismissed. Hence this appeal. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that once the Corporation passed the resolution for transfer of quarters, the Commissioner had to abide by it and on objection being taken by him the resolution could not be H 357 358 SUP.REME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A nullified. The following question arose before this Court : Whether the employees of the Municipal Corporation can claim any right for transfer of municipal quarters to them on the basis of the resolutions B passed by the Municipal Corporation, which are not initiated or moved but objected to by the Municipal Commissioner? Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1.1. Section 200 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 c empowers the Commissioner to dispose of the moveable property or grant lease of any immovable property or to sell the same subject to the conditions provided thereunder. On the condition of obtaining sanction of the Corporation, the power to transfer immovable property, the value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees vests in the Commissioner. Result is-the Commissioner can transfer such immovable property only after obtaining sanction of the D Corporation. Obtaining of sanction by the Commissioner is mandatory. The effect of the non-observance of the statutory prescription would vitiate the transfer. This would also mean that the power to dispose of the property would vest in the Commissioner and not in the Corporation. No specific power is conferred upon the Corporation for such transfer. The scheme envisages E checks and balances for disposal of immovable property on the power of the Commissioner. [365-C-D) 1.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, at no point of time, the Municipal Commissioner has decided or agreed to transfer the Municipal .• quarters in favour of its employees/allottees. There is no legal right to claim F ownership on the basis of the resolutions passed by the Corporation as the said resolutions are without any power or authority. Hence, there is no substance in the instant petitions. [365-FJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13639 of 2000. G From the Judgment and Order dated 21.7.2000 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 118of1989. ' , WITH , SLP(Civil)Nos.13920-13921, 14385, 14386, 14398, 14403, 14405, 14393, H 14411, 14400, 14406, 14402, 14615 and 14619 of2000. t B.S. KHURANA v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [SHAH, J.] 359 Mukul Rohtagi and K.N.Rawal, Additional Solicitor General Gopal A Subramaniam, Rajeev Dhawan, San jay Krishan Kaul, Sudhir Nandrajog, Ajay Swami, Rakesh K.Shanna, Manish Kumar, Shiv Kumar, Indra Sawhney, Chander Shekhar Ashri and Suresh Ch.Tripathi for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. The question involved in this group of special leave petitions is - Whether the employees of Municipal Corporation can c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.