VIJAY RATAN LAL RATHI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 7-8-2001 (Annexure P-9) and the order dated 20th March, 2003 (Annexure P-l) by which the State Government in purported exercise of power under sub-section (5) of Section 80 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') has refused to accord sanction in respect of the lease deed executed in favour of the appellants.

(2.) The order was challenged on the grounds that the same was passed against a person who died during the pendency of the recommendation before the State Government and also on the ground that the impugned order was passed in a review filed by son of Ratan Lai Rathi. The above contentions have been rejected with observations that resolution for grant of lease in favour of Ratan Lal Rathi was passed on 3rd April, 1987 when he was alive, however, the petitioners/appellants did not take steps to substitute the name of Ratan Lai Rathi before the State Government when the matter was pending for approval and meie mentioning of name of Vijay Ratan Lai Rathi (the present petitioner) m the rev:sionaI order does not vitiate the earlier order passed by the State Government. With respect to dispute regarding the fact as to whether the father of the petitioners/appellants was or not assignee, it has been held that the same canned be decided in the writ petition. The resolution of the Municipal Corporation does not confer any right on the petitioner/appellants, as the same was subject to approval of the State Government, which was ultimately rejected.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Municipal Corporation granted lease to Hari Singh Darbar for a period of 30 years. After his death, his son applied for renewal of the lease, however, before any order could be passed, he also expired. After the death of Prithvi Singh, the Municipal Corporation cancelled the lease in favour of late Hari Singh Darbar by giving a notice to Rajendra Kumar in the year 1982 and he was directed to give vacant possession of the land. In these circumstances, a suit for permanent injunction was filed by Rajendra Kumar and an order of temporary injunction was passed in his favour. During the pendency of the suit, an amicable settlement was arrived at between Rajendra Kumar and the Municipal Corporation and the Municipal Corporation agreed to grant fresh lease to Ratan Lai Rathi, who was in possession of the lease land. The suit was withdrawn by Rajendra Kumar and ultimately, the Corporation considered grant of lease to Ratan Lai Rathi. The only ground pressed by the appellants in this writ appeal is that learned Single Judge has not correctly interpreted Section 80 (5) (ii) of the Act. The approval of the State Government is required only under Section 80 (5) (ii) of the Act only when title is transferred by the Municipal Corporation whereas for grant of lease by the Municipal Corporation, approval of the State Government is not necessary.