RAGHUNATH Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three connected appeals and all arise out of Suit No. 31 of 1942 brought by Jharey Ram, father of appellants, against six defendants Municipal Board Mathura, defendant 1, Government of the United Provinces, defendant 2, Brindaban, defendant 3, Hira Lal, son of Brindaban, defendant 4, Mangi Lal, defendant 5 and Dr. (Capt.) Suri, defendant 6. The facts briefly stated are these :

(2.) In the year 1915, the Municipal Board of Mathura resolved that it would lay out a part to be called the Dampier Park for the use of the public. The Municipal Board requested the Government to acquire land for them for this purpose. Certain land was, therefore, acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act. The land in dispute belonging to Jharey Ram, plaintiff, formed part of the land acquired. The Municipal Board thereafter levelled the land and planted some trees but later on gave up the idea of laying out the park or using the land for that purpose. As the Municipal Board no longer required the land, it sold it to defendants 3 to 6 under four sale-deeds. One sale deed dated 30-9-1936, was executed in favour of Mangi Lal, defendant 5, another was executed on the same date in favour of Dr. (Capt) Suri, defendant 6, a third one was executed on 1-9-1937, and a fourth one on 8 11-1937, both in favour of Hira Lal, defendant 4. No sale deed was executed in favour of Brindaban defendant 3, father of Hira Lal, but he was impleaded as father and son were members of a joint Hindu family. Before executing these sale deeds, the Municipal Board did not obtain the sanction of the commissioner as required by the rules framed under the Municipalities Act, but obtained it after their execution. Mangi Lal then built a house, on the land purchased by him, worth about Rs. 25,000.

(3.) Jharey Ram instituted the suit, which has given rise to this appeal, on 29 9-1942. He alleged that when the Municipal Board did not require the land which was acquired from him by the Government on its behalf, the Municipal Board should have relinquished the land, under the rules framed under the Municipalities Act to the Collector who should then have first offered the land to the original owner i.e., the plaintiff; but this was not done and instead the land was sold to the various defendants under the aforementioned sale deeds. He also challenged the validity of the sale deeds on the ground that the previous Sanction of the Commissioner was not obtained for affecting these sales as required by the rules framed under Municipalities Act. He, therefore, claimed a declaration to the effect that the sale deeds were void and ultra vires and ineffectual and prayed that possession over the land in dispute may be delivered to him by ejectment of the defendant, vendees and after demolition of the constructions, it any, made by any of them on payment of the price paid by the defendants to the Municipal Board and of such other sum as the Court may determine. In the alternative he prayed that it may be declared that the property still vests in the Municipal Board of Mathura and a decree for possession in favour of Municipal Board may be passed, and that the Municipal Board may be ordered to relinquish the plaintiff's land to the Government of U P. through the Collector to be disposed of in accordance with the rules laid down in chap. XX of the Revenue Department Manual of Orders of the U. P. Government and the Municipal Board be ordered to take measures for the land being taken possession of and being disposed of by the Collector of Mathura in accordance with the aforesaid rules, and necessary directions be issued against defendants 1 and 2 by way of mandatory injunction to enforce their statutory liabilities.