The
learned counsel appearing for the City Montessori School has
taken us through the relevant documents. He also pointed out that the plot in
dispute is a garden plot, which is adjacent to the land held by the school.
He pointed out that the High Court has not accepted that the bid offered by the
school could have been cancelled on the ground that the school purchased
the tender document on the last date. The learned counsel submitted that the
order dated 6th December 2000 passed by the Allahabad High Court in the appeal
filed by the alleged lessee against100
dismissal of his suit is a collusive order.
He
submitted that the Trial Court decided all issues framed against the120 alleged lessee except the issue of his
possession. The learned counsel urged that the lease claimed by the alleged
lessee is not in subsistence. He pointed out that the alleged lessee is
a defaulter who has not paid rent for a long time. He submitted
that, in any case, the original lessee could not have transferred
the leasehold rights regarding the plot to the alleged lessee.
The
learned counsel, therefore, submitted that, firstly, the order of cancellation
of the highest200 bid offered
by the school was bad in law. Secondly, during the pendency of the Writ
Petition, the authority had no right to consider the prayer
made by the alleged lessee for conversion. He submitted that the conversion
order and240 consequent deed
executed in favour of the alleged lessee are entirely illegal. He
would, therefore, submit that the order of acceptance of the bid offered by the
school be passed.
The
learned counsel representing the alleged lessee and his sons, submitted that
the order of conversion was passed in favour of the alleged lessee in
terms of the prevailing policy300
of the State Government and there is nothing illegal about the same. He
submitted that the deed executed based on the order of conversion is legal and
valid. He submitted that the school belatedly made the application for
amendment of the Writ Petition for challenging the conversion and for the sale
deed, which was never allowed. Therefore, the High Court360 committed gross illegality
by setting aside the order of conversion and the sale deed executed by the
authority in favour of the alleged lessee. He submitted that there
was a delay on the part of the school in purchasing the400 tender document, and as the same was
purchased after the expiry of the outer limit provided in the tender notice,
the school's bid could not have been accepted. He urged that, as the
alleged lessee has been in possession for decades, the conversion order cannot
be faulted. The learned counsel representing the State Government, stated that
the present legal position is that such leasehold plots cannot be converted to freehold
and cannot be auctioned.
In
the facts of the case,480
there is no dispute that the plot vests in the State. Even assuming that
the alleged lessee has leasehold rights500
concerning the plot, the rights of the State as the owner and lessor can
be transferred only by adopting a fair and transparent process by which
the State fetches the best possible price. In case of sale of a
leasehold plot by the lessor, the rights of the lawful lessees do not
get affected, as their tenancy will be attorned to the purchaser
in view of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882. Therefore, the
rights of the State as the lessor can only be sold by a public auction
or by any other transparent method by which, apart600 from the lessee, others too get a
right to submit their offer. Selling the plot to its alleged lessee at a
nominal price will not be a fair and transparent method at all. It
will be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
There
is a controversy raised by the alleged lessee about whether the application to
amend the Writ Petition made by the school to incorporate the challenge
to the conversion and the deed was allowed. However, on page 12 of the impugned
judgment, the High Court recorded the submission of the learned counsel for700 the alleged lessee that there was a
delay on the part of the school in challenging the order of conversion. 720
The
submissions recorded in the impugned judgment show that the parties proceeded
on the footing that there was a challenge to the conversion order. The counter
filed by the alleged lessee before the High Court shows that it refers to the
amended Writ Petition and paragraph 45 of the counter raises a contention of
the delay in challenging the conversion deed. Therefore, the argument that the
amendment was not allowed need not detain us.
Coming
back to the facts of800
the case, the plot was put to auction in 1995. The Special Nazul Officer
accepted the highest bid offered by the school of Rs. 8,50,000, out of which a
sum of Rs. 85,000 was paid along with the tender. We840 have already stated the facts leading to
the cancellation of the highest bid of the school and acceptance of the second
highest bid of the sons of the alleged lessee.
It
is important to note that the Special Nazul Officer passed
an order on 26th November 2001, by which the consideration for converting
leasehold rights into freehold rights was fixed900
at Rs.67,000. This amount was less than 10 per cent of the bid offered by the
school about 16 years before the order dated 26th November 2001. On the face of
it, this cannot be a fair and transparent process of transferring the
State's ownership rights.
We
have perused the judgment of the Civil Court dated 24th July 2000 which
dismissed the960 suit filed by
the alleged lessee. The Trial Court held that the alleged lessee was not entitled
to the benefits of Government Orders dated 17th February 1996 and 1st
December 1998. In the suit, the alleged lessee sought conversion from1000 leasehold to freehold based on these
two Government Orders. All findings were recorded against the alleged lessee
except the finding that he was in possession of the plot. Being aggrieved
by the decree of dismissal of the suit, the alleged lessee preferred First
Appeal No.81 of 2000. The appeal was disposed of by the order dated 6th
December 2000. The High Court heard the counsel for the alleged lessee,
the authority, and the State Government. The first paragraph refers to the appearances
of the learned counsel. 1086
The second paragraph gives the facts in brief. The same paragraph also notes
that1100 the alleged lessee
sought the relief of mandatory injunction for the grant of
conversion in terms of the Government Orders dated 17th February
1996 and 1st December 1998 and that the Trial Court declined to
grant the said relief.
Thus,
only the statements of the parties were recorded, and it was observed that the
authority would have to consider the application made by the alleged
lessee for the conversion of leasehold rights into freehold rights and to pass
appropriate orders expeditiously. It is important to note that the High
Court specifically recorded that it did not interfere with the findings1200 recorded by the Trial Court.
ENGLISH SHORTHAND LEGAL DICTATIONS
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFlI-vIVyBTdwRYDwKvyhM00ky9TRnoJI
