IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT QFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHAmSGARH) WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 3o ^_/1_ _QF^2(i8y"< PETITIONER .\^.^y ^^••^ ^•y^>' .....••^ .<''"' \.}-" >^-' ^' ••'-^' -- \.->*' i-tf-p"' <y RESPONDENTS A^ Smt. Padma Devi Chopkar W/o Anand Chopk^r, aged about 48 years, Religion Hindu, Occupation Housewife, R/o House No.8, Main Road, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS 1. -" The State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, at Secretariat (D.K.S. Bhawan), Raipur (C.G.). ^s^ -:-r:;::^. ..„ (C.G.j, through: its Commissioner. 3. The Deputy Comniissioner (Revenue), Nagar Palik Nigam, Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OP INDIA Rr HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.2651 OF 2008 PETITIONER Ramesh Kumar Shukla RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another And W.P.(C) Nos.2829, 2830, 2831, 2832 & 3034 of 2008 (Writ petitions under Article 226/227 ofthe Ctfnstitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Y.C. Sharma, Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri and Shri Sanjeev Verma, counsel for the respective petitioners. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General for the State. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Shri Pankaj Agrawal and Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocates forthe respondent/Municipal Corporation, Raipur. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 22nd day ofJuly, 2010) 1. W.P.(C).Nos.2651, 2829, 2830,2831,2832 & 3034 of 2008 involve the common question of law & facts and, as such, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Case of the petitioners is that by resolution No.59 dated 1-9-1998 (Annexure - P/5 to W.P. (C) No.2651 of 2008) it was resolved by the respondent Corporation that the petitioners, who were in possession of the property in dispute on the basis of temporary lease on payment of premium at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq.ft. and 7.5% annual rent their cases may be considered for converting temporary lease to permanent lease. Thereafter, recommendation was made to the State Government as required under the provisions of Section 3 of the MP/CG Municipal Corporation (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1994 (for short "the Rules, 1994"). The State Government by its order dated 27-3-2008 (Annexure - P/1 to W.P. (C) No.2651 of 2008) disapproved the .s--.- resolution No.59 dated 1-9-1998 passed by the Municipal Corporation. Thus, these petitions. 3. Shri Sharma, Shri Bhaduri and Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submit that the recommendation made by the Corporation way back in the year 1998 and the rate which was considered by the State Government, ought to have taken into consideration the prevailing rate in the^year 1998. The State Government after having taken about 9 years in consideration of the resolution dated 1-9-1998 of the Corporation, applied the Collector rate as on 2008. Thus, the petitioners have no occasion to make the payment of premium at the prevailing rate. Thus, the order dated 27-3-2008 passed by the State Government is not sustainable in law, as the same has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel further submit that there is no reason to take more than 9 years in considering the resolution dated 1-9-1998 passed by the Corporation. Now the circumstances have changed in 2008. Even the rates have enhanced substantially. Thus, the order passed by the Secretary is perverse and illegal. The rate was offered in the year 1998, the State Government ought to have considered the resolution passed by the Corporation within a reasonable time may be within 3 months or 6 months and for such delay there is no explanation or justification on the part of the State Government. Learned counsel next submit that under proviso to Rule_3 of the Rules, 1994, if the Corporation is of fhe opinion that holding public auction may be dispensed. The public auction was not necessary. 5. The State has filed its return on 10-9-2009. Para 7 of the return reads as under: "It is respectfully submitted that the standing committee of the respondent No.2 by resolution no. 59 cfated 01/09/1998 it has been resolved that the land in question would be converted into permanent lease from temporary lease at the premium of Rs. 50/- per sq. ft. and at 7.5% annual rent subject to sanction from the answering respondent, in pursuant to the said proposal the petitioner has deposited to the tune of Rs.3,65,400/- as premium. It is'fiertinent fo mention herein that as per the guideline issued by the Collector, Raipur for the year 2007-08 the market value ofthe said land is Rs.9085/- persq. meter and as per the said guideline the market value of the land in questiori comes at Rs. 61,70.144/-." 6. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate appearing with Shri Sudeep Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocates for the respondent Corporatibn, submits that there is no response to the fact asto whether previous sanction of the State Government was taken for dispensing with the requirement of holding of auction, but the same has been done by way of resolution keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have been residing on the disputed premises on the basis of temporary lease. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 8. There is no dispute that recommendation for allotment was made on the basis of resolution dated 1-9-1998 on the basis that the petitioners were already residing on the disputed area on the basis of temporary lease granted to them. However, there is no mention in the proceedings or otherwise asto whether previous sanction of the State Government before taking resolution to dispense with public auction for granting the permanent lease to the petitioners, who were temporary lease holders, was done. The fact remains *""°"' that the State Government has taken about 9 years in granting approval or disapproval on the resolution dated 1-9-1998 passed by the Corporation. Thus, the petitioners were permitted to continue on the same place for a further period of 10 years. Delay on the part ofthe officer, who has considered the resolution after a period of 9 years, has further complicated the matter on creation of State of Chhattisgarh, pursuant to the provisions of the Madhya e< Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. City of Raipur has assumed a greater importance, as Raipur has been made capital of the State of Chhattisgarh and prices have also increased manifolds. 9. Shri Kachhawaha, learned Dy. Adv. General appearing for the State, submits that the resolution was received on 2-9-2004. Letter dated 2-9-2004, which is referred in the impugned order, is produced; the same is taken on record. The letter dated 2-9-2004 is a reminder, as there is a clear reference of sending of proposal on 14-10-1999. Thus, the aforesaid contention ofShri Kachhawaha that the communication was received by the State Government from the Corporation for the first time on 2-9-2004 is contrary to the facts. 10. On failure to take action on letters dated 14/10/1999 and 2/9/2004 by the authorities, the petitioners were driven to approach this Court by filing petitions being W.P. Nos.3878, 4818, 5973, 3879 & 3880 of 2006, respectively. The said writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court in the year 2006 with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of lease within a period of six months. Thereafter, the authorities woke-up and decjsion was taken on 27-3-2008 i.e. after lapse of more than one and half year. c€ 11. Having regard to the facts situation of the case, the impugned order is not sustainable, as the rate was fixed in the year 1998 and thereafter, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners to make the payment. The petitioners very categorically submit that they are ready and willing to pay the premium at the Collector's rate prevalent today with other fees, tax, etc. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 27-3-2008 (Annexure-P/1 in all writ petitions) is quashed. However, having regard to the facts situation of the case, liberty is reserved to the Corporation to consider cases of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994. The Corporation may consider preferential treatment to the petitioners as on the basis of resolution passed earlier, the petitioner haveawaited for a long period more than 10 years and they have been on the disputed land on the basis of temporary lease. 13. The petitionershave been suffering since 1998 when the resolution was passed though the petitioners were allowed to continue in the disputed premises on the basis of temporary lease. The Corporation, if so advised, may take previous sanction of the State Government for dispensing with the requirement of auction, as provided under the proviso to Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions all the writ petitions stand disposed of. . ^^__2_^- Sd/- Satish K. Agmhotri Gowri - . Judge