YOGESH GOEL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the lessee of land measuring 122.25 sq. yards of respondent No.5-Municipal Corporation, Karnal. His lease was cancelled, prompting him to file the present writ petition. I have been informed that since there was no interim order in the writ petition, the petitioner has meanwhile been dispossessed. However, this fact was brought to my notice when arguments were nearing conclusion and thus, I am proceeding to decide the writ petition on merits.

(2.) I am constrained to note that assistance from the learned counsel was not upto mark. Thus, I have had to go through the record myself before passing judgment.

(3.) On 26.5.2005, the petitioner wrote a communication to the Executive Officer of Municipal Council, Karnal (predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.5) and stated that a vacant piece of land measuring 122.25 sq. yards behind his shop be given to him on lease. A copy of the plan was also attached with the communication. Based thereon, the Executive Officer wrote a communication dated 21.7.2005 to the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal-respondent No.4. It was requested that permission to assess the rent of the area measuring 122.25 sq. yards, which is nazul land, be granted. It appears that the matter remained pending with respondent No.4 till a communication dated 27.6.2007 was addressed to the Executive Officer seeking a report. The Executive Officer submitted his report vide communication dated 1.1.2009, in which it was inter alia mentioned that the land cannot be auctioned because there is no access to it. This was followed by a communication dated 13.7.2009, in which it was again mentioned that there is no direct passage to the land and that the same is not fit for any activity. It also does not form part of any town planning scheme. According to the existing Rules, the same can be leased out with prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner asked the Executive Officer vide communication dated 7.9.2009, to forward a Resolution of the Municipal Council. Vide communication dated 24.12.2009, a Resolution dated 13.11.2009 was forwarded. The Deputy Commissioner then forwarded the case to respondent No.3- Director, Urban Local Bodies recommending the grant of lease. The proposal was approved by the State Government at a rental of Rs.3500/- per month as is apparent from noting dated 19.8.2010. Respondent No.3 communicated the approval of the State Government to respondent No.4 through communication dated 25.8.2010 and lease deed dated 1.11.2010 was executed between the petitioner and Municipal Corporation, Karnal as meanwhile, Municipal Council, Karnal had been upgraded to a Corporation. However, vide notice dated 20.2.2014, the petitioner was informed that the State Government had directed cancellation of lease vide letter dated 29.1.2014 and therefore, he should vacate the land immediately. This communication is under challenge in the writ petition.