- (1.) THESE writ petitions involving similar nature facts and identical issues on the grievance of the writ petitioners against extra demand as raised by the respondent-Municipal Board, Jaitaran towards 99 years' lease for the respective shops, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order.
(2.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court finds that the demand in dispute has its genesis in an order dated 12.02.2007 as issued by the State Government in its Local Self Department; and while issuing this order, a few relevant facts and factors appear not to have gone into consideration. Thus, this Court has formed an opinion that with setting aside of the demand in dispute, the matter be restored to the file of the Secretary to the Government in its Local Self Department for decision afresh. As the matter is proposed to be restored for re-consideration by the Secretary concerned, not much dilatation on the facts appears necessary. Only a brief reference to the relevant facts and background aspects would suffice. It appears from the material placed on record that each of the petitioner or his predecessor had been in possession of a particular piece of land near the local Bus Stand at Jaitaran. Substantial number of such persons had been paying rent to the earlier existing Panchayat having jurisdiction over the area in question. The Municipal Board, Jaitaran after having succeeded the Panchayat concerned, continued with such arrangement whereby the persons were given small portions of land for commercial purposes on rental basis. Some of the persons in possession even raised construction of shop at the area in question. Thereafter, there had been several propositions in the meetings of the Municipal Board for regularisation of the possession of such persons by granting them regular lease after charging the costs of land, lease amount, penalty etc.; and decisions to that effect were taken in the meetings of the Municipal Board dated 03.07.2004, 15.07.2005 and 03.09.2005. It is borne out that in the year 2005, while acting in conformity with the resolutions adopted, the petitioners or their predecessors were given the notice/s demanding the arrears of rent and so also 30% of the reserve price towards regularisation, apart from other charges. The petitioners/their predecessors deposited the amount as demanded in the year 2005 itself.
(3.) IT is borne out from the material placed on record by the respondents themselves that on 24.10.2005, the Municipal Board addressed one communication to the Director, Local Bodies seeking sanction for grant of 99 years' lease to the petitioners/their predecessors. It appears that the matter remained pending with the Government for some time and another communication was sent by the Board on 16.01.2007. Ultimately, the Dy. Secretary to the Government in its Local Self Department conveyed the sanction by the order dated 12.02.2007 while stating as under:- " , 03-07-04 8, 15-07-05 . 4 03-09-05 . 11 and ' ( ) ' + and - 0 99 1 - / / , 0 : / ' - + , 1974 32 and 0 /, + B + and ' and ' ( ) , ' ( 0 D ' 99 1 / - (E ( :- 0 H and / 1. 2. and - and ( / / " ;