LexBAHADURSINH LAKHUBHAI GOHIL versus JAGDISHBHAI M. KAMALIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BAHADURSINH LAKHUBHAI GOHIL A v. JAGDISHBHAI M. KAMALIA AND ORS. DECEMBER 17, 2003 [ASHOK BHAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] B Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949-Section 79- Auction by Municipal C01poration-Grant of lease of vacant plot for 99 years-Payment of part premium-Allotment subject to deposit of balance amount within time specified otherwise to be cancelled-Auction-pur-. C chaser neither paying balance .amount nor rent nor taking steps for obtaining possession-However, after 44 years seeking incorporation of his name in lease register-Also willing to deposit the amount-Chairman rejecting the same-However, newly elected Chairman passing resolution in the meeting for incorporation of his name-Order issued for reco~e1y D of balance amount and leasing out land to the purchaser-Purchaser thereafter transferring the land-Public Interest Litigation questioning action of Corporation-High Court quashing the resolution and allowing the petition-Justification of-Held. .. By passing order of recovery of balance amount and leasing out the land public interest given a complete go-by and valuable public property doled out at the behest of those who E are duty bound to protect the same thus, order of High Court justified and is not a fit case for "xercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136-Constitution of India, 1950 Article 136. Administrative Law : Malatide-Presumption of-When act~on is taken in undue haste malafide can be presumed. F Decision when ultra vires-When it is taken by statutory authority at the behest or on suggestion of person who has no statutory role to play. G Municipal Corporation held auction for granting vacant plot of land. Respondent No. 7-predecessor-in-interest of appellant being highest bidder was allotted land for period of 99 years. He deposited part-premium and was granted extension of three months for making H 1023 1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R .. A payment which was subject to the condition that on failure to do so it will be cancelled. Respondent No. 7 did not deposit the bal~nce amount nor rent nor municipal tax nor took any steps for obtaining possession. Meanwhile, P filed suit in relation to the plot and respond- ent-Corporation asserted right, title, interest as also possession in itself. B After expiry of 44 years respondent No. 7 made applications to the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation to enter his name in lease register on deposit of balance amount. Chairman of Standing Commit- tee rejected the application. But soon after the election of new Chairman, resolution was passed to incorporate the name of respond- ent No. 7 in lease register even though proposal for considering C respondent No. 7's application was not included in the agenda and also the respondent No. 7 did not move any fresh application. Thereafter, order was issued for recovery of the balance amount with interest and to lease out the land to respondent No. 7. Respondent No. 7 then transferred the land to the appellant for a sum of Rs. 4 lacs. Respondent D Nos. 1 and 2 filed public interest litigation questioning the incorporation of respondent No. 7's name in municipal register by respondent- Corporation. High Court quashed the resolution and allowed the petition. Hence the present appeal. E F Appellant contended that the High Court com"mitted a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment without hearing the appel- lant; and that as the Competent Authority for good and valid reasons accepted the balance money and entered the name of the respondent No. 7 in the lease register, the High Court should not have interfered therewith. Respondent contended that having regard to the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act, no title passed on to respondent No. 7; that the finding of the High Court to the effect that no possession was delivered to the highest bidder or to his successors interest being G a finding of fact, no interference therewith by this Court is warranted; that the applications having been rejected by the respondent-Corpo- . ration as also by the Chairman, Standing Committee, the new incum- bent of the said office could not have considered the matter afresh in absence of any statutory power to review the said orders; and that the H applications, if construed to be applications for grant of fresh lease, the B.L. GOHIL v. J.M. KAMALIA 1025 provisions of Section 79 of the Bombay Provincial Mun
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.