NARENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayer made is to quash order dated 25. 4. 1995, Annexure P-4, whereby decision was taken by the Government to lease the land for a period of 99 years to the 6th respondent. Challenge is also to Annexure P-8, i. e. lease deed dated 3. 11. 1995, whereby land has been leased out to 6th respondent pursuant to decision dated 25. 4. 1995.

(2.) 6th respondent, namely, Pushpa Devi was given dealership under the scheduled caste category for the sale of petrol and other petroleum products by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. Pushpa Devi is none else but the wife of Sh. Phool Chand Mullana who at the relevant time was Cabinet Minister holding the portfolio of Minister of Education in the Government of Haryana. On allotment of retail outlet, 6th respondent made an application on 8. 3. 1995 to the Minister, Local Government, Haryana for transfer of land situated on Ambala-Jagadhri road on reserve price. In the application she mentioned that the land belongs to the Municipal Council, Ambala Sadar. Before any decision could be taken on her application, she submitted application dated 16. 3. 1995 to the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, requesting for allotment of site measuring 2000 sq. yards out of the municipal land. Alongwith the application, she enclosed letter of allotment. On the basis of the application submitted by the 6th respondent, the Government agreed to give on lease the land for a period of 99 years at the rate of Rs. 550/per sq. yard. A letter in this regard was issued by the Commissioner and secretary to Government, Local Government, Haryana, to the Director, Local Bodies, Haryana, Chandigarh. A copy of the letter was also sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala and to the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Ambala Sadar. Letter dated 25. 4. 1995 was put up before the President, Municipal Council, Ambala Sadar and it was decided that no action be taken till the matter is placed before the Sub-committee of Municipal Council. The matter was referred to the Sub-Committee, Finance, which rejected the decision taken by the Government to give on lease the land to 6th respondent. The matter regarding grant of lease was also put up in the meeting of the Municipal Council held on 31. 5. 1995, which according to the petitioners was attended by 30 Municipal Counselors wherein it was unanimously decided that the lease be not granted to 6th respondent. The decision was again reiterated by the Municipal Council in its meeting held on 24. 6. 1995. In the said meeting, it was also decided that in view of resolution dated 31. 5. 1995, the receipt issued in respect of the deposit of lease money be returned to 6th respondent as the submission of draft was illegal. It is the case of the petitioners that though the land in question belongs to the Municipal Council, Ambala Sadar, but the State Government by obtaining opinion of the Executive Officer, Municipal council, held that the land belonged to the Haryana Government and accordingly, granted lease to the 6th respondent. The allegation of the petitioners is that the lease has been granted because the 6th respondent is wife of Cabinet Minister in the Government of Haryana. Petitioners thus have challenged the decision dated 25. 4. 1995 whereby the Government decided to give on lease the land to the 6th respondent, and also the registered lease-deed dated 3. 11. 1995 for 99 years executed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Ambala Sadar. It has been contended that the Executive Officer had not been authorized by the Municipal Council, Ambala Sadar, to enter into any contract or to lease out the land to 6th respondent. The lease granted to 6th respondent has also been challenged on the ground that the disputed land is municipal land and so, it could be leased out only by the Municipal Council in the manner prescribed by the Haryana Municipal Act, Rules, Bye-laws and the instructions issued by the State Government from time to time. It has been alleged that the Deputy Commissioner and also the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, acted in totally unauthorized and partisan manner while giving on lease the land to 6th respondent. It has been contended that the Deputy Commissioner received the application of 6th respondent and got a report from the Executive Officer to the effect that it was a government land, thereafter the whole case was processed at a break-neck speed. The possession of the land is alleged to have been given on 4. 9. 1995 whereas till that time neither the lease-deed had been executed nor the lease-money had been deposited. Hence, the present writ petition calling in question the action of Government in giving on lease the land to 6th respondent.

(3.) IT has been contended by Mr. R. S. Surjewala, Advocate, appearing for 6th respondent that the question raised in the writ petition is in regard to ownership of land, i. e. whether it belonged to Municipal Council, Sadar, or to the State Government. He contended that the disputed question of title has been raised and therefore, proper course for the petitioners is to institute civil suit, and the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not the proper proceedings for seeking the relief. In answer to these submissions, it has been contended by Mr. O. P. Goyal, Sr. Advocate, counsel for petitioners, that the land in dispute vested in the Municipal Council as it had been transferred under the excision agreement dated 5. 2. 1977 to the Notified Area Committee which after on was converted into Municipal committee Sadar. It has been contended that there is not even a single instance except the present one giving land out of excised area under the orders of Government. It has further been contended that even if the land belonged to the State Government, no procedure for allotment of land has been followed and therefore, lease in favour of 6th respondent is null and void.