LAWS(GJH)-2015-2-92

MATHURBHAI SOMABHAI CHUNARA Vs. DIRECTOR, MUNICIPALITIES

Decided On February 18, 2015
MATHURBHAI SOMABHAI CHUNARA Appellant
V/S
DIRECTOR, MUNICIPALITIES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS intra -court Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 08.03.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 2989 of 2010.

(2.) EVEN as the original order dated 24.8.2007 of the Collector is not produced and annexed with the petition, a copy thereof was furnished to the Court by learned counsel, Mr.Satta. According to that order, the premises given away to the petitioner was part of a public street at the main gate of a vegetable market and it was in use of the public. It was held that municipality had transferred the immovable property in violation of provisions of Section 65 of the Act. By the impugned order, the Director of Municipalities also held that the premises in question was in public use for the purpose of entering the vegetable market and it was auctioned pursuant to resolution no.500 dated 20th October 2006 of Executive Committee of the Municipality. It is no one's case anywhere that previous permission of the State Government was obtained by the municipality for effecting the transfer.

(3.) IT was vehemently argued by learned counsel, Mr.Satta, that the petitioner was a bona fide license holder and the lease was for a period less than ten years, and hence, the provisions of Subsection (2) of Section 65 of the Act did not apply. It, however, could not be disputed that the petitioner himself had paid Rs.1,57,000/ at the auction by way of premium and he was required to pay Rs.40/per month by way of license fees. It could also not be disputed that the amount of premium was not refundable. Under these circumstances, it was not a pure case of lease of immovable property for a term not exceeding ten years but it was other transfer of immovable property of which the market value exceeded Rs.1,00,000/( Rupees One Lac). Therefore, in compliance with the provisions of Section 65 (2) of the Act previous permission of the State Government was necessary and admittedly not obtained.