Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Agarwala and P. L. Bhargava, JJ.
RAGHUNATH - Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL BOARD - Respondents
Second Appeal 423 Of 1947
Decided On : 09/18/1950
MUNICIPALITIES ACT - SECTION 127(B), 296 - RULES FRAMED UNDER - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY VESTED IN BOARD - PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF COMMISSIONER - NECESSITY - SALE DEEDS WITHOUT APPROVAL - VALIDITY - RULES IN CHAPTER XX OF REVENUE DEPARTMENT MANUAL - BINDING NATURE - DISCRETION VESTED IN COLLECTOR - NATURE OF - MANDATORY INJUNCTION - WHEN CAN BE GRANTED - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, SECTION 56(K).
Fact of the Case:
Municipal Board of Mathura acquired land for a park but later abandoned the idea. The land was sold to various defendants without obtaining the sanction of the Commissioner as required by the rules framed under the Municipalities Act. The plaintiff, the original owner of the land, filed a suit for a declaration that the sale deeds were void and for possession of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The sale deeds were void as they were executed without the previous approval of the Commissioner, even though it was obtained subsequently. The rules in Chapter XX of the Revenue Department Manual, which provide that the Collector should offer the land to the previous owners as an act of grace, are statutory rules and not merely departmental rules. The discretion vested in the Collector under these rules is not absolute but must be exercised reasonably and judicially. The plaintiff has a legal right to have the land offered to him by the Collector, and the Collector is under a legal duty to do so unless there are special circumstances which would justify him in acting otherwise. The plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory injunction against the Municipal Board to relinquish the land to the Collector, but not against the defendant who had made valuable constructions on the land.
Issues: 1. Whether the sale deeds executed by the Municipal Board without the previous approval of the Commissioner were valid? 2. Whether the rules in Chapter XX of the Revenue Department Manual are statutory rules or merely departmental rules? 3. Whether the discretion vested in the Collector under these rules is absolute or must be exercised reasonably and judicially? 4. Whether the plaintiff has a legal right to have the land offered to him by the Collector? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory injunction against the Municipal Board to relinquish the land to the Collector?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The sale deeds were void as they were executed without the previous approval of the Commissioner, even though it was obtained subsequently. 2. The rules in Chapter XX of the Revenue Department Manual are statutory rules and not merely departmental rules. 3. The discretion vested in the Collector under these rules is not absolute but must be exercised reasonably and judicially. 4. The plaintiff has a legal right to have the land offered to him by the Collector. 5. The plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory injunction against the Municipal Board to relinquish the land to the Collector, but not against the defendant who had made valuable constructions on the land.
Final Decision: The appeal of the plaintiff was allowed in part and an injunction was granted that within four months from the date of the judgment, the Municipal Board of Mathura should relinquish the land in dispute in favor of the Collector, to be disposed of by the Collector according to law. The declaration that the three sale deeds were illegally made and are void was affirmed. The cross-objection of Mangi Lal was allowed and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed in its entirety as against him.
( 1 ) THESE are three connected appeals and all arise out of Suit No. 31 of 1942 brought by Jharey ram, father of appellants, against six defendants Municipal Board Mathura, defendant 1, government of the United Provinces, defendant 2, Brindaban, defendant 3, Hira Lal, son of brindaban, defendant 4, Mangi Lal, defendant 5 and Dr. (Capt.) Suri, defendant 6. The facts briefly stated are these :
( 2 ) IN the year 1915, the Municipal Board of Mathura resolved that it would lay out a part to be called the Dampier Park for the use of the public. The Municipal Board requested the government to acquire land for them for this purpose. Certain land was, therefore, acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act. The land in dispute belonging to Jharey Ram, plaintiff, formed part of the land acquired. The Municipal Board thereafter levelled the land and planted some trees but later on gave up the idea of laying out the park or using the land for that purpose. As the Municipal Board no longer required the land, it sold it to defendants 3 to 6 under four sale-deeds. One sale deed dated 30-9-1936, was executed in favour of Mangi Lal, defendant 5, another was executed on the same date in favour of Dr. (Capt) Suri, defendant 6, a third one was executed on 1-9-1937, and a fourth one on 8 11-1937, both in favour of Hira Lal, defendant 4. No sale deed was executed in favour of Brindaban defendant 3, father of Hira Lal, but he was impleaded as father and son were members of a joint Hindu family. Before executing these sale deeds, the Municipal Board did not obtain the sanction of the commissioner as required by the rules framed under the Municipalities Act, but obtained it after their execution. Mangi Lal then built a house, on the land purchased by him, worth about Rs. 25,000.
( 3 ) JHAREY Ram instituted the suit, which has given rise to this appeal, on 29 9-1942. He alleged that when the Municipal Board did not require the land which was acquired from him by the government on its behalf, the Municipal Board should have relinquished the land, under the rules framed under the Municipalities Act to the Collector who should then have first offered the land to the original owner i. e. , the plaintiff; but this was not done and instead the land was sold to the various defendants under the aforementioned sale deeds. He also challenged the validity of the sale deeds on the ground that the previous Sanction of the Commissioner was not obtained for affecting these sales as required by the rules framed under Municipalities Act. He, therefore, claimed a declaration to the effect that the sale deeds were void and ultra vires and ineffectual and prayed that possession over the land in dispute may be delivered to him by ejectment of the defendant, vendees and after demolition of the constructions, it any, made by any of them on payment of the price paid by the defendants to the Municipal Board and of such other sum as the court may determine. In the alternative he prayed that it may be declared that the property still vests in the Municipal Board of Mathura and a decree for possession in favour of Municipal board may be passed, and that the Municipal Board may be ordered to relinquish the plaintiffs land to the Government of U P. through the Collector to be disposed of in accordance with the rules laid down in chap. XX of the Revenue Department Manual of Orders of the U. P. Government and the Municipal Board be ordered to take measures for the land being taken possession of and being disposed of by the Collector of Mathura in accordance with the aforesaid rules, and necessary directions be issued against defendants 1 and 2 by way of mandatory injunction to enforce their statutory liabilities.
( 4 ) DEFENDANT 6, Dr. (Capt.) Suri did not contest the suit. The defence of the other defendants, inter alia, was that the plaintiff had no cause of action for the suit and the relief claimed by him could not be granted to him because he had no leg
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
