RAJESHBHAI THAKORBHAI BHATT Vs. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As all the matters are interconnected on facts and as the common questions arise, they are being considered by this common Judgment finally today, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) Special Civil Application No. 10477 of 2003 is preferred by one Rajesh Thakorbhai Bhatt claiming to be a contractor who has been authorised to make construction. The short facts are that the Borsad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Municipality") wanted to make construction of 36 shops and as per the petitioner, plinth level construction was made by the Municipality and thereafter the additional construction was to be made but the Municipality was- in shortage of funds and, therefore, the offers were invited from the public at large and offer of the petitioner was ultimately accepted for construction of 36 shops. It is the case of the petitioner that he has paid Rs.17 lac to the Municipality towards the construction of the shops upto plinth level plus Rs.15 lac were paid to the Municipality for permitting construction, in all Rs.32 lac. It appears that thereafter on 16.9.1999, the proposal was submitted to the Municipality for allowing the construction of additional 30 shops on the land adjacent to the place on which original construction was to be made and it is the case of the petitioner that such proposal was accepted by the Municipality and the offer of the petitioner was accepted vide resolution No. 186. As per the petitioner, as per the agreement, the cost of construction was to be borne by the petitioner and the amount which may be realised for allotment as

(3.) On 9.4.2001, the President of the Municipality preferred appeal against the decision of the Collector before the Director of Municipalities and the said appeal was entertained. It appears that the petitioner approached this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.3626 of 2001 for challenging the proceedings of appeal on the ground that the President of the Municipality had no power to challenge the decision of the District Collector under Section 253 of the Act. It appears that in the said Special Civil Application, on 12.2.2002 a consent term was submitted between the petitioner and the Respondent Municipality, whereby it was agreed to withdraw the appeal and the petitioner had agreed to pay the amount of Rs.7,50,000/= by end of February, 2002 and the rest of the amount due and payable to the Borsad Municipality on or before 31.3.2002. In the said consent terms, it was also provided that BU permission shall be granted by the Municipality and the Municipality shall not object for electricity connection etc., and one of the terms of agreement was that the petitioner shall be free to dispose of the shops as agreed and the petitioner shall be entitled to give advertisements for such purpose and the necessary steps in this regard. It appears that in the said proceedings, the Director of Municipality was joined as party and though there was no agreement on the part of the Director of Municipality the Asst. Government Pleader, who represented the Director of Municipality signed the purshis. This Court (Coram: Kundan Singh, J.), as per the order dated 12.2.2002, disposed of the matter in terms of the consent terms and it was further ordered that the petitioner and respondent No.2 i.e. Municipal Corporation shall act as per the aforesaid consent terms. The statement recorded by the learned AGP on behalf of the Director of Municipalities and the Collector, was that the respondents No.1 and 3 have no objections for taking up the consent terms on record. It appears that after the disposal of the aforesaid Special Civil Application as per the order dated 12.2.2002 passed by this Court, the Director of Municipalities heard the appeal on merits. The Director of Municipalities found that by various resolutions, the Municipality has disposed of various lands at the token rent and with a view to see that the permission may not be required to be taken, artificial lease agreement of nine years is created and the valuation is not undertaken by the District Valuation Committee and before that the possession is handed over and as a result a huge financial loss is caused to the Municipality. It was also observed by the Director of Municipalities that in normal circumstances whenever the property is to be given on rental basis in case of residential property, the rent should be approximately 12% of the valuation of the property and it is al so is found by the Director of Municipalities that in certain cases properties were allotted to the relatives of the Councilors and office bearers of the Municipalities and, therefore, ultimately the Director of Municipalities has set aside various resolutions of the Municipalities including the resolution No.186, which is produced in the present petition and it is further ordered by him to consider the matter under Section 70 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act for fastening the Financial responsibilities, in case the Municipality has suffered any loss and for such purpose, the direction is given to the District Collector. It is under these circumstances, the present petitioners have approached this Court.