VIJAY RATAN LAL RATHI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 07/08/2001 (Annexure P/9) and the order dated 20/03/2003 (Annexure P/1), by which the State Government in purported exercise of powers under sub-section (5) of Section 80 of Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short "the Act, 1956") has refused to accord sanction in respect of the lease deed executed in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) The facts, in brief, for disposal of the case, are that the land in dispute was initially allotted to Babu Hari Singh Darbar, who constructed the cinema hall. According to the petitioner, Babu Hari Singh Darbar leased out the cinema hall to the father of the petitioner on 24/3/1956. Babu Hari Singh Darbar died on 21/4/1972 and on his death, his son, Prithviraj Singh Darbar was brought on record, as his legal representative. Prithviraj Singh Darbar further executed a lease deed in favour of the father of the petitioner on 11/10/1976 for a period of 10 years. Prithviraj Singh died on 19/8/1980. Thus, the property devolved on his adopted son namely; Rajendra Singh Darbar. Rajendra Singh Darbar also executed a lease deed in favour of the father of the petitioner for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 1/11/1983. There is no dispute that the land was never allotted to the petitioner by the Municipal Corporation on lease or otherwise. The petitioner claiming to be assignee, it appears, continued to be in possession of the cinema hall constructed on the land in dispute. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of agreement, which led to withdrawal of civil suit No.10-A/82 filed by Rajendra Kumar on 25/2/1987 (Annexure - P/4), the respondent Corporation in exercise of its power under Section 423 (1) (x) of the Act, 1956 resolved to allot the land in dispute to the father of the petitioner namely; Ratan Lal Rathi on certain conditions. The resolution of allotment of lease for a period of 30 years was subject to approval of State Government, which was rejected by the impugned order dated 7/8/2001 (Annexure - P/9). Thus, this petition.