AFTAB KHAN JALIL KHAN Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HINGANGHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. The respective counsel waive notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard finally with consent of counsel for the parties..

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.02.2016 passed by the Collector in proceedings under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Parishads and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short, 'the said Act') whereby resolution dated 24.08.2009 passed by the respondent no.1-Municipal Council has been suspended. Further challenge has also been raised by amending the writ petition to the communication dated 20.10.2018 issued by the State Government directing the Municipal Council to re-assess the market value and take fresh steps in the matter of allotting the land in question on lease with a view to ensure higher revenue being received by the Municipal Council.

(3.) The facts relevant for adjudicating the challenges as raised are that plot no.67 admeasuring about 895 square feet which is owned by the Municipal Council is the subject matter of dispute. On 18.06.2005, the General Body of the Municipal Council passed a resolution so as to auction plot no.67 to let it out on lease. On that basis after issuing public notices, auction was held on 17.08.2009 in which upset price of 1,20,553/- was fixed. The Municipal Council received four bids and the highest bid for Rs.1,26,000/- was of the petitioner. After accepting that bid, the Municipal Council on 24.08.2009 passed a resolution and resolved to obtain the consent of the State Government for leasing out the property for a period of thirty years. This resolution dated 24.08.2009 was the subject matter of challenge in proceedings under Section 308 of the said Act at the instance of one Afsar Ali-brother of the respondent no.2 herein. The ground of challenge as raised was that since the applicant's brother namely Muzaffar Ali, the respondent no.2 herein, was physically handicapped and he had a right of preference to be allotted the said plot on lease, the allotment in favour of the petitioner was bad in law. On 09.05.2011, the Collector passed an order and observed that since the appellant therein was seeking personal benefit by invoking provisions of Section 308 of the said Act and there was absence of any public interest involved, the application was not liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the application came to be dismissed. Thereafter the respondent no.2 herein approached this Court in February-2013 by filing Writ Petition No.1212 of 2013. In the said writ petition, a declaration was sought that the allotment of the plot in question was in violation of provisions of Section 92 of the said Act and it was thus prayed that the said plot be allotted to the respondent no.2. The Division Bench on 12.03.2013 observed that an alternate remedy was available for the petitioner therein to invoke. Hence by granting that liberty to have recourse to the alternate remedy available, the writ petition was disposed of. Thereafter in September-2013, the respondent no.2 filed proceedings under Section 308 of the said Act and challenged the resolution dated 24.08.2009 that was passed by the Municipal Council. The petitioner filed his reply to the aforesaid application. By the order dated 17.02.2016, the Collector was pleased to allow the said application filed under Section 308 of the said Act by observing that allotment of the plot in question would result in creating an obstruction in the development of a proposed project and secondly that there was no permission of the State Government to grant a permanent lease for a period of thirty years. Accordingly, resolution dated 24.08.2009 passed by the Municipal Council came to be set aside.