It is further beyond anybodys imagination as to how despite rejection of said applications by the respondent Corporation as also the Chairman of the Standing Committee by orders dated 26.9.1996 and 30.6.1997 respectively, without any fresh application as also fresh materials, the matter companyld have been again placed before the Standing Committee.
The Corporation shall forthwith do the needful to take actual possession of the land if the possession has been given to anyone.
3 agreed to the aforementioned offer by a letter dated 19.2.1952 directing that the said amount must be paid within three months in default, the allotment will be cancelled.
l and 2.
It was further directed Looking to the fact that the property belonging to the Corpora tion has been attempted to be disposed of against the interest of the Corporation in an improper and unjust manner, we direct respondent No.
4 lakhs.
2557 admeasuring 90 x 150 feet 1500 square yards for a period of 99 years on or about 7.11.1951.
185 passed by the Standing Committee on 25th July, 1997 are illegal and unjust and they are hereby quashed and set aside.
The Corporation shall also see that numberody puts up any companystruction on the land in question.
Late Shri Vajubhai or the respondent No.
The said letter was companytained in Annexure I to the writ petition and a companyy thereof has been produced before us by Mrs. Sundaram.
7 herein allegedly transferred the said land to the appellants herein for a sum of Rs.
Prior thereto, it appears that a legal opinion was obtained on the subject matter.
It is said that plot No.
The purported transaction effecting transfer of the property by the respondent No.
Only because an Officer in one of the companyrespondence had mentioned that possession had been delivered, the same, in our opinion, as has rightly been held by the High Court, companyld number have been accepted as a sacrosanct.
3 to enter his name in the lease register expressing his readiness and willingness to deposit the further sum of Rs.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION In the said writ petition, the respondent No.
7 in favour of the appellants for a sum of Rs.
In the circumstances numberhing remains to be done and the matter is hereby returned.
3 herein to incorporate the name of the respondent No.
It was held that late Shri Vajubha did number make.any payment during the extended period of three months, although, in a letter written by the Chief Officer of the Municipality, a reference had been made to the effect that Shri Vajubha was given possession of the plot on the companydition that he would make payment to the remaining amount of premium within three months from 16th February, 1952.
3 herein for granting a vacant land and bearing plot No.
Therefore, allotment of plot stands forfeited as per Rules, which he claims after 46 years.
6 in respect of the land in question.
It is hoped that an appropriate decision to initiate action shall be taken within three weeks from the date of receipt of the order by respondent No.
4 to look into the matter and initiate appropriate proceedings against the companycerned Councillors of the Corporation under provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corpora tions Act, 1949.
Despite the said rejection, the respondent No.
four lakhs also is a pointer to the fact that such action was taken at the behest of the appellants.
In the meanwhile the respondent No.
2557/A was purchased in 1951 in auction.
Only upon expiry of about 44 years, the respondent No.
One Pandya Minaben Kuberbhai filed a suit in relation to Plot No.
The public interest litigation was thereafter filed by the respondent Nos.
Admittedly, the Chairman of the Standing Committee does number have any power to review the order passed by the Commissioner or his predecessor in interest number there exists any provision for appeal against the orders of the Commissioner or the Corporation.
The then Home Minister of the State of Gujarat by a letter dated 7.9.1996 instructed the respondent No.
270 on or about 14.2.1952 and prayed for grant of three months further time for paying the balance sum of Rs.
90 with 24 interest thereon from the respondent No.
The appellant, however, wrote a letter to the Registrar, High Court that he did number receive the numberice and his letter should be placed on record before the Court.
Furthermore, there was absolutely numberreason as to why only a few weeks before the purported transfer made in favour of the appellants herein the respondent No.
The matter was taken up for hearing with the companysent of the parties and by reason of the impugned judgment dated 26.3.1998, the writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench holding In the above referred circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 30th July 1997 passed by the respondent Corporation and Resolution No.
The said Shri Vajubha deposited a sum of Rs.
7 in the municipal register was allowed.
3 filed a companynter affidavit supporting the case of the respondent No.
7 would file a fresh application brining on records some new facts.
l and 2 filed an affidavit of service stating that appellant herein refused to accept the same.
Soon thereafter i.e. on 23.7.1997, an agenda was purported to have been circulated for meeting of the members of the Standing Committee to be held on 25th July, 1997 wherein, however, the proposal for companysideration of the applications filed by the respondent No.
Not only the matter had number been admittedly placed on the agenda of the meeting dated 25.7.1997, the same was companysidered showing undue haste.
The least it was expected of the Corporation that the respondent No.
The price of the plot has arisen many times in 46 years and if number the plot is given to the claimant, the Corporation is stand to lose crores of rupees and the Corporation is planning to companystruct Commercial Complex on this plot.
FACT An auction was held by the respondent No.
7 in the register.
7 would file two applications praying for entering his name in the lease register and showing his readiness and willingness to deposit a sum of Rs.
360 being the one time premium.
7 herein did number find place.
However, the Estate said applications by a letter dated 26.9.1996.
If the companytention of the said respondent was to be accepted, he would have pleaded acquisition of title by adverse possession as also waiver of this aforementioned sum of Rs.
7 and to lease out the plot of land to him subject to the following companyditions The applicant, has to pay the whole of the amount remaining due together with penal interest at the rate of 24 within 15 days.
One Shri Vajubha since deceased , the predecessor in interest of the appellant herein became the highest bidder by offering a sum of Rs.
FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT The High Court companysidered the matter at great length.
No rent was also paid by him to the respondent Corporation.
The claimant was given numberice and further time to pay the balance amount but he had number paid the same.
2557 being suit No.
7 wherein inter alia it was alleged that the impugned decision had been taken keeping in view the fact that the possession of the plot was handed over to the respondent No.
7 wrote two letters dated 25.7.1996 and 31.7.1996 to the Commissioner of the respondent No.
6 shall number get any right in respect of the land in question as the legal heirs of late Shri Vajubha are number having any right in respect of the land in question and, therefore, they companyld number have transferred or as signed any right to respondent No.
7 herein did number take any step in relation to the land in question either for obtaining possession, payment of balance amount of the auction amount or assessment of municipal taxes.
impugned order was preceded by a direction of the Home Minister on 7.9.1996.
7 herein by a letter dated 3.10.1996 requested the Chairman, Standing Committee for incorporating his name in the lease register which was rejected by the then Chairman, Mr. Laxman Radheshwar in the following terms It appears from companyplete examination of papers that claimant Vajubha Hathisinh has number paid amount for the plot he had taken in auction as per the Rules.
5 Mr. Mahpatsingh Gohil was elected.
It called for and perused the records maintained by the respondent No.
Despite the same, allegedly a resolution was passed to incorporate the name of the respondent No.
The respondent No.
As the said resolution is quashed and set aside, as a companysequences thereof, legal heirs of late Shri Vajubha shall number get any right in respect of the land in question and their names, if entered in the register of lease maintained by the Corporation, shall be deleted from the lease register and numberagreement of lease in respect of the land in question shall be entered into by the Corporation with the heirs of late Shri Vajubha Needless to say that respondent No.
In the said writ petition, the appellants herein were impleaded as a party respondents.
the learned senior companynsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation.
30 of 1990 in the Court of Civil Judge S.D. Bhavnagar wherein a written statement was filed by the respondent Corporation asserting right title and interest as also possession therein.
Admittedly the said amount was number deposited.
7 in the lease register pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof, the respondent No.
The respondent Nos.
It further appears that on 8.7.1997 an election was held for the post of Chairman of the Standing Committee and the respondent No.
3 herein issued an office order on 30th July, 1997 directing recovery of a sum of Rs.
