Competency of a local authority to transfer land rights and execute lease deeds under relevant state acts.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4, Sri Pankaj Srivastava for respondent No. 2 and perused the record.

2. At the outset, Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to rebut the additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent and prays that the instant petition be heard and decided.

3. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the respondent Nagar Nigam issued an advertisement on 16.10.2004 inviting bids for auction of 25 plots to be settled on lease hold basis. One Jai Prakash Agarwal was the highest bidder for plot No. 604 as he had offered a premium of Rs.23,50,000/- for obtaining the lease. It seems that twenty five percent of the premium amount was deposited by him on 22.12.2004 as earnest money on fall of the hammer. As per terms of auction, remaining amount was to be deposited within fifteen days of approval of the bid. Thereafter, the allottee had to take steps for execution of the lease deed within one month. On 7.3.2005, Jai Prakash Agarwal was informed that his bid had been accepted. Thereafter, it is alleged that he inspected the plot and came to know that it was under litigation and in illegal occupation of certain person. It also appears from the material placed on record that Nagar Nigam made efforts to obtain possession of the plot by requesting the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut to take action against illegal occupants. It is also an admitted fact that on 9.11.2009, Jai Prakash Agarwal submitted an application along with affidavit before respondent No. 2 for transfer of allotment in favour of the petitioner. The said request, it seems, was made in terms of Clause 17 of the auction document. By a communication dated 30.3.2012, the petitioner was informed that the request for transfer of the allotment in favour of the petitioner had been approved by Nagar Ayukt by order dated 6.3.2012 and the petitioner was required to deposit the remaining premium amount i.e. a sum of Rs.14,25,000/-along with 15% lease rent i.e. Rs.3,52,500/-, in all a sum of Rs.17,77,500/- to facilitate execution of lease deed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner deposited Rs.17,77,500/- on 7.12.2012, however, the lease was not executed in his favour. This compelled the petitioner to file the instant writ petition praying for a mandamus commanding the second respondent no. 2 to execute lease deed in favour of the petitioner and hand over vacant possession of the subject land within stipulated period.

4. According to respondent-Nagar Nigam, initially the original allottee Jai Prakash Agarwal moved an application on 19.3.2005 that he was no more interested in the plot and that the money deposited by him be returned to him. Thereafter, on 23.10.2009, he made request for allotment to be transferred in favour of one Surendra Pratap, followed by another application dated 9.11.2019 for transfer of the allotment in favour of the petitioner herein.

5. The case set up by Nagar Nigam, Meerut before this Court is that now it is not in a position to execute the lease deed. It is alleged that a gazette notification was issued on 11.9.1987 extending the limits of Nagar Nigam, Meerut so as to include the disputed plot as well. The said land, according to respondent No. 2, was banjar land and consequently vested in the government. On its inclusion within limits of Nagar Nigam, it came under the management of Nagar Nigam. In support of said stand, copy of Khatauni has been brought on record wherein the entry is 'Banjar-Nagar Nigam'.

6. The respondent Nagar Nigam contends that by virtue of section 128 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, it did not had any right to transfer the land without prior permission of the State Government and that no such permission was ever granted. It is also the case of the said respondent that subsequently, the State Government by another notific