Ravi S. Dhawan and V P. Goel, JJ.

The issue raised in this writ petition, in effect, seeks a writ of certiorari to quash an order of 6-8-1994 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) by which the petitioner was indi cated by the Additional Chief Executive Of ficer, Zila Parishad, Sonbhadra, that as the State Government has not given approval for the lease of the plot No. 1 within Com pany Bagh, the grant cannot be made. The petitioner desires that this communication be quashed.

2. The Court has heard learned coun sel for the petitioner Mr. V. K. Jaiswal, learned Standing Counsel for the District Magistrate, the respondent No. 1 and learned counsel for the Zila Parishad, respondent No. 2.

3. The Court is not inclined to grant a prerogative writ to interfere by this writ petition in this matter for more than one reason.

4. Firstly, between the petitioner and the respondents it is on record that the lease which the petitioner seeks as a grant from the Government cannot be granted except by approval of the authority so named under U. P. Kshetra Samiti and Zila Parishad Ad-hiniyam, 1961. The fact that the approval of the Govt. has to be taken implies that the property either is Nazul Land or belongs to the Govt. as its alienation without the per mission and approval of the Government cannot be had. These public properties vest with the Zila Parishad by virtue of Section 193 of the Act, aforesaid. Even otherwise, should the capital value of any immovable property exceeds Rs. 500 but does not ex ceed Rs. 2,500 then there is an embargo on the Zila Parishad to transfer except on the approval of the Collector. Where the value of the property exceeds Rs. 2,500 but does not exceed Rs. 10,000 from the Commis sioner of the Division and where it exceeds Rs. 10,000 from the State Government. In reference to the property in question the approval is beyond the sanction of the Zila Parishad. Then, the rules framed under the Act, particularly Rule 10 further stipulates that if the matter is of a lease the term of which exceeds ten years but not thirty years, the previous sanction from the Commis sioner concerned is to be obtained and if the term exceeds 30 years then of the State Government. Again, to grant a lease within a public park is not within the domain of the Zila Parishad nor can the State Government destroy the characteristic of a public part notwithstanding that it may not be in use.

5. It is the petitioners case that of the consideration sought for the grant of the lease, he deposited an amount of Rs. 650. Assuming the lease could be granted, it comes within the purview of an approval to be granted by the Collector and if the capital value was to be taken, otherwise, the ap proval would be granted either by the Com missioner or by the State Government. There is no approval on record of a sanction to settled the grant in favour of the petitioner. This is one aspect of the matter.

6. Then, the, aforesaid, Act also provides that should the grant be of a lease for thirty years, then, previous sanction of the State Government will have to be ob tained and the Zila Parishad is obliged not to settle the properties except upon having obtained this sanction. This is so provided in Rule 10. Between the petitioner and the respondents, there is no issue, that the lease contemplated is for 99 years. There is no escape from the law that the sanction could be had only from the State Government. This sanction was not forthcoming.

7. The other aspect of the matter is tnat it is the petitioners case that the grant which was to be received by him as a lease was within the precincts of a public park, the "company Bagh". Putting this description of the property "company Bagh" and the fact that the grant needs the approval of the State Government only gives an occasion for the Court to draw a presumption that the grant certainly is of Government land vesting for the Management of it in the hands of the Zila Parishad, previously, the District Board. There is a ver

Click Here to Read the rest of this document