THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BARWALA, DISTRICT HISAR, HARYANA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY/PRESIDENT versus JAI NARAYAN AND COMPANY & ANR

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 897 · Decided: 29-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
897
THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BARWALA, DISTRICT
HISAR, HARYANA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY/PRESIDENT
v.
 JAI NARAYAN AND COMPANY & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2222 of 2022)
MARCH 29, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Haryana Municipal Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1974:
s. 5 read with s. 10(2)(e) 2 - Haryana Municipalities Management
of Municipal Properties and State Properties Rules, 1976 – r. 2(3),
2(4) – Auction sale – Inter-departmental communication and/or the
notings on the file – Relevance of – Respondent filed suit for
mandatory injunction to execute a sale deed on the ground that he
is a bonafide purchaser on basis of the auction and is in possession
as owner of the suit land – Case of the Municipal Committee that it
is unable to execute the sale deed without proper sanction of the
competent authority-State Government – Trial court decreed in favor
of the respondent – Said order upheld in the first and second appeal
– In appeal before this Court, case of the Municipal Council that
the auction conducted in which the respondent was the highest bidder
was not approved by the State Government, and that till such time
the auction is confirmed, it would not confer any equitable and
legal right to the respondent; and it would be only after the
confirmation of sale and the letter accepting the bid is issued –
Held: Sub-rule (ii) of r. 2(3) contemplates that no sale by auction
would be valid until it has been confirmed by the Deputy
Commissioner – Communication referred to by the respondent is
not the communication by the Deputy Commissioner to the
Municipality or to the respondent that the sale stands confirmed –
It is an inter-departmental communication with no endorsement of
the copy of the said communication to the respondent – Inter-
departmental communication and/or the notings on the file are not
the decisions of the State – Thus, the letter seeking approval of the
State Government by the Deputy Commissioner is not the approval
granted by him, which could be enforced by the plaintiff in the
court of law – Suit was not maintainable since there was no vested
   [2022] 16 S.C.R. 897
897
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
898
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
right with the respondent to claim such a decree merely on the basis
of participation in the public auction; and even if the respondent
had any right on the basis of an auction, he could at best sue for
specific performance of the so-called agreement – Respondent was
granted decree for mandatory injunction not only beyond the period
of limitation but also in contravention of the statute and the rules
framed thereunder – Judgment and decree passed by the courts
below are set aside – Respondent is in possession, which is found
to be illegal and without the authority of law – Municipality would
take possession forthwith – Auction amount would stand forfeited
towards the damages for the illegal occupation of the land for more
than 20 years since the date of auction in contravention of law.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Haryana Municipalities Management of
Municipal Properties and State Properties Rules, 1976
contemplates two acts to be completed by the Deputy
Commissioner, one of which is approval of conduct of sale which
was granted on 25.10.1995. Thus, there is compliance as far as
clause (i) of Rule 2(3) of the 1976 Rules is concerned. The other
important provision is sub-rule (ii) of Rule 2(3) of the 1976 Rules
which contemplates that no sale by auction shall be valid until it
has been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. The
communication dated 10.1.2007 (Ex P-34) referred to by the
plaintiff is not the communication by the Deputy Commissioner
to the Municipality or to the plaintiff that the sale stands
confirmed. In fact, it is an inter-departmental communication with
no endorsement of the copy of the said communication to the
plaintiff. Thus, the reliance of the plaintiff on the communication
dated 10.1.2007 (Ex.P/34) is not helpful to the argument raised
by him as it is the inter-departmental communication from the
Deputy Commissioner to the Director, Urban Local Body
Department to seek approval but in the absence of any approval
granted, no right would accrue. [Para 10][903-C-F
1.2 The letter seeking approval of the State Government
by the Deputy Commissioner is not the approval granted by him,
which could be enforced by the plaintiff in the court of law. [Para
17][908-C-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
899
1.3 The suit was not maintainable for th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.