1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5411 OF 2010 Rameshwar Shankarrappa Munde ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- The Municipal Council and others ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.J. Salunke, advocate for petitioner. Mr. B.R. Sontakke Patil, advocate for respondent no.1 Mr. A.M. Kulkarni, advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. Y.M. Kshirsgar, A.G.P. for respondent nos.3 and 4. ..... CORAM : R.M.BORDE,J DATE : 26th August, 2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard respective counsel appearing for the parties. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner rejecting the appeal presented by the petitioner raising exception to the order passed by the Collector, is subject matter of challenge in this Petition. 2. It transpires from perusal of papers that the subject matter of dispute is property belonging to the Municipal Council, which is said to have been granted on lease basis to the petitioner. It transpires that the order of lease is for a period of nine years and 2 lease granted in favour of the petitioner is admittedly not in consonance with the provisions of Section 92 of the Act. The order passed granting lease in favour of the petitioner is not supported by the resolution. Moreover, initial period prescribed in agreement itself is nine years. Section 92 prescribes that property of the Municipal Council can be granted on lease initially for a period of three years and the period of lease can be extended from time to time. However, total period in respect of grant of lease shall not exceed nine years. Admittedly, the lease grated in favour of the petitioner is not in consonance with provisions of Section 92 of the Act. 3. In this view of the matter, in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction, no interference is required to be caused. 4. The Petition deserves to be rejected and hence same stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE gas/wp5411.10