S.A.Hakeem, J. - (1.) in this appeal, the appellant has called in question the correctness and legality of the order passed by the learned single judge upholding the validity of the resolution passed by respondent 3-municipal council, cancelling its earlier resolution dated 31-10-1986.
(2.) the appellant has been running his petrol pump in certainl and belonging to respondent 3 municipal council. Originally, the lease of the land was granted to him in the year 1953, which was renewed from time to time on the recommendation of the state government. On the representation of the appellant, the state government recommended to the municipal council to consider his application for purchasing the land at the market value. In pursuance of the said direction by the government, respondent 3, by its resolution dated 31-10-1986, resolved that the land in question be granted to the appellant at 1 times the market value thereof. The decision was said to have been taken by a majority of the council. However, this resolution was not given effect to, and on 18-11-1986 respondent 3 municipal council passed another resolution cancelling the earlier one. The appellant, having challenged the said resolution in appeal, the director of municipal administration set aside the earlier resolution by which the municipal council had resolved to grant or sell the land at 1 times the market value. At the same time, declared to suspend the subsequent resolution dated 18-11-1986. The appellant has, in the writ petition, sought for a writ of certiorari quashing the resolution of respondent 3 municipal council dated 18-11-1986 and the order of the director of municipal administration dated 31-8-1987. He has further sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the land to him.
(3.) having upheld the resolution passed by respondent 3 dated 18-11-1986, the learned judge has opined that the appellant cannot claim as of right any land belonging to the municipality, much less can he compel it to sell the land to him at any particular rate. The learned judge has further held that, in the circumstances, the order made by the director of municipal administration one way or the other does not affect the appellant and it is open for him to seek renewal of the lease for consideration by the respondents in accordance with law.;