Hariom Sharma vs Municipal Corp., Gwalior

S.K. Gangele, J.—Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition for the relief that the respondent Corporation be directed to execute the agreement of lease in accordance with resolution dt. 8.12.1998 and also grant permission to the petitioner to raise construction.

The petitioner pleaded that vide resolution dated 8.12.1998 the petitioner was granted lease of the land area 194.89 sq. ft. situate at Residency Tiraha, Kalpi Road Morar and thereafter the aforesaid resolution was forwarded to the Government and vide order dt. 1.7.1991 the aforesaid resolution was accepted and it was directed that the lease be granted to the petitioner on the following conditions.

However, the respondent Corporation has not accepted the lease.

The Municipal Corporation in its reply pleaded that the petitioner sought the land of lease for running milk dairy for a period of thirty years and in accordance to Section 264 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 the lease of the land, which is situated in a market place cannot be granted. It is further submitted that the resolution was passed look back in 1998 and now it is not possible to grant lease in favour of the petitioner because the land is required for widening of the road. It is further submitted that the residents of the area filed a civil suit in regard to same land questioning the right of the petitioner. The petitioner was also a party in the civil suit. That suit was dismissed. Against the said order of dismissal, an appeal was filed, that was also dismissed. The appellate Court in the judgment dt. 8.8.2002 passed in Appeal No. 21/2001 observed that a land which is of public use cannot be granted on lease to any person. Municipal Corporation has no right to grant public passage or the land, which is being used for the public purpose in favour of particular person, hence, the respondent No. 4/present petitioner did not acquire any right.

From the aforesaid facts of the case, it is clear that an adverse observation in the judgment was made against the respondent No. 4/present petitioner to the effect that he had not acquired any right on the basis of resolution passed by the Municipal Corporation. No further appeal has been filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree, hence, the aforesaid judgment and decree has become final. Apart from this, in my opinion, when the land is required for public purpose, this court can not force the Municipal Corporation under the changed circumstances to grant lease of the land. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.